Congressional Democrats from Maryland and Virginia warned on Tuesday that they would sue over the administration’s planned firings and threats of no back pay for furloughed workers.

Both have been used as pressure points by the White House to get Senate Democrats to budge from their dug-in position and vote to reopen the government, but until late last week, no direct action had been taken.

Late last month, the OMB circulated a memo that there would be reductions in force (RIFs) beyond the typical furloughs during a government shutdown. It had remained a threat until last week, when OMB Director Russ Vought announced on X on the 10th day of the shutdown, “The RIFs have begun.” 

WHITE HOUSE ESCALATES SHUTDOWN CONSEQUENCES AS DEMOCRATS SHOW NO SIGNS OF BUDGING: ‘KAMIKAZE ATTACK’

Flash forward to Day 14, and Senate Democrats from Maryland and Virginia, states home to tens of thousands of federal employees, showed no signs of caving from their shutdown position despite the firings.

“When they tell you when they tell you that the shutdown is making them fire these federal employees, do not believe it for a moment,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said. “That is a big lie. It is a big fat lie. It is also illegal. And we will see them in court.”

The lawmakers also railed against threats that furloughed federal workers would not receive back pay. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that roughly 750,000 nonessential federal employees could be furloughed, and their estimated back pay could cost up to $400 million per day.

The threat runs counter to a law President Donald Trump signed in 2019 that required furloughed workers to receive back pay in future shutdowns.

“The idea that he doesn’t understand that everybody has to get paid back shows maybe how short his memory span is, or how [he] arbitrarily wants to pick and choose,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said.

SENATE SET FOR NEW VOTE TO END SHUTDOWN, BUT GRIDLOCK OVER OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES REMAINS

Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced on X on the 10th day of the shutdown, “The RIFs have begun.” (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

While the lawmakers threatened actions in the courts, Rob Shriver, who formerly served as acting director of the Office of Personnel Management under the Biden administration before taking a position at the non-profit legal services and public policy research organization Democracy Forward, said that a lawsuit was already in motion.

“As soon as Russ Vought tweeted on Friday, we were on our way back to court to file an emergency motion to stop those unlawful RIFs right in their tracks,” Shriver said. “A hearing on that motion is tomorrow, and no matter what happens, we will continue to fight these illegal RIFs.”

Still, despite the threats from the administration, there has been little progress toward reopening the government. The Senate will again vote on House Republicans’ continuing resolution (CR) Tuesday night, which has so far failed seven times. Both sides are firmly rooted in their positions.

TRUMP SAYS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN LAYOFFS ARE ‘UP TO’ DEMS AS STANDOFF CONTINUES

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., attends a news conference following a weekly Democratic policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington, Oct. 7, 2025. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., want a firm deal in place to extend expiring Obamacare subsidies before open enrollment begins on Nov. 1, while Senate Republicans argue that they are open to negotiating a deal only after the government reopens.

And the actions and threats from the Trump administration appeared to only further steel Democrats’ resolve on the issue.

“The message we have today is very simple, very simple,” Van Hollen said. “Donald Trump and Russ Vought: stop attacking federal employees. Stop attacking the American people and start negotiating to reopen the federal government and address the looming healthcare crisis that is upon us.”

Former President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken both claimed some credit for President Donald Trump’s Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement on Monday.

On X, Biden – who is undergoing treatment for cancer – said that he was “deeply grateful and relieved” that the Gaza war is approaching its end.

“The road to this deal was not easy,” the Democrat wrote. “My Administration worked relentlessly to bring hostages home, get relief to Palestinian civilians, and end the war.”

But Biden also gave Trump credit for getting “a renewed ceasefire deal over the finish line.”

BEFORE AND AFTER IMAGES SHOW DEVASTATING DESTRUCTION IN GAZA

“Now, with the backing of the United States and the world, the Middle East is on a path to peace that I hope endures and a future for Israelis and Palestinians alike with equal measures of peace, dignity, and safety,” he concluded.

On Monday, Blinken said Trump’s 20-point peace plan for the Gaza Strip was based on one developed by the Biden administration.

In a lengthy post on X, Blinken, who served in the Biden administration, outlined how Trump was able to secure the peace agreement. He noted that Arab states and Turkey have said “enough” to Hamas, and said the response also showed that other Iran-backed groups — Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi rebels — were not coming to Hamas’ aid.

“It starts with a clear and comprehensive post-conflict plan for Gaza,” Blinken wrote. “It’s good that President Trump adopted and built on the plan the Biden administration developed after months of discussion with Arab partners, Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

NETANYAHU ADVISOR EXPRESSES ‘DEEP FAITH’ IN TRUMP’S GAZA CEASEFIRE PLAN FRAMEWORK APPROACH

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken said President Donald Trump’s 20-point ceasefire agreement was based on the one developed by the Biden administration. (Armend Nimani/AFP via Getty Images)

Blinken said the Biden administration briefly secured a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in January, resulting in the release of 135 hostages before the deal fell apart.

He also questioned how Trump could secure a permanent peace plan.

Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Trump about Blinken’s remarks aboard Air Force One.

“Everybody knows it’s a joke,” Trump said. “Look, they did such a bad job. This should have never happened.”

“If just a decent president — not a great president like me — if a decent president were in, you wouldn’t have had the Russia-Ukraine (war),” Trump said. “This was bad policy by Biden and Obama.”

Trump was in Egypt on Monday to work on the second phase of the cease-fire while meeting with more than 20 world leaders.

TRUMP’S WEEK IN REVIEW: PRESIDENT SECURES HISTORIC PEACE DEAL TO BRING HOSTAGES HOME AS SHUTDOWN CONTINUES

President Donald Trump delivers a speech at the Gaza International Peace Summit, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Monday, Oct. 13, 2025. (Yoan Valat, Pool photo via AP)

“We’ve heard it for many years, but nobody thought it could ever get there. And now we’re there,” Trump said.

“This is the day that people across this region and around the world have been working, striving, hoping and praying for,” he added. “With the historic agreement we have just signed, those prayers of millions have finally been answered. Together, we have achieved the impossible.”

In his post, Blinken said the postwar plan for Gaza should be implemented immediately, “with eyes wide open about its challenges: pulling together the international stabilization force, fully demilitarizing and disarming Hamas, dealing with insurgents, and expeditiously securing a phased but full Israeli withdrawal.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, center, speaks with U.N. Secretary General António Guterres, right, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, left, at the U.N. headquarters in New York City on Oct. 24, 2023. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He also credited Trump for reaffirming “the key principles we established for Gaza at the outset of the war — no platform for terrorism, no annexation, no occupation, no forced population transfers — and for making clear the overall goal is to create the conditions for a credible pathway to a Palestinian state.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Newsom on Monday also vetoed bills that would have assisted descendants of slaves for some state programs. Those included legislation that would have required licensing boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs to expedite applications from people who are descendants, and a bill to set aside funds from a state program providing financial assistance for first-time home buyers.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create an office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus, so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. Legislation “doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This [legislation] is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out that California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state Constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.