Politics
Judges Have Ordered Federal Workers Back on the Job. Now What?
Last month, thousands of employees with probationary status across the federal government were fired by the Trump administration in an extraordinary and coordinated move. On Thursday, a pair of court rulings called for agencies to reinstate a untold number of them.
What happens now isn’t so clear cut.
Agencies are sorting out how to bring back these employees and give them the back pay ordered by the courts. Some of the fired workers may indeed return to their jobs. Others may be placed on administrative leave until their agencies undergo a round of large-scale layoffs, the planning for which is already underway.
The mass firings of probationary workers were just one early phase of President Trump’s aggressive plan to shrink the federal government. His administration appeared to target probationary employees because they do not have the same civil service protections as employees who have been in their job longer. But a flurry of challenges to the legality of how Trump officials went about ordering up the personnel changes have resulted in some reprieves, at least temporarily or on paper.
In interviews and on social media, fired employees expressed excitement about being reinstated and getting paid for the days since they were fired. Still, many employees are in the dark, learning details about their livelihood through media reports.
Here is what we know about the reinstatements, and what we don’t.
What did the judges order?
The rulings, in federal courts in California and Maryland, call for a pause in the firings and reinstatement of probationary employees across 19 agencies. The cases themselves will continue to move forward, with the government planning to appeal.
But the plaintiffs’ goals were to at least temporarily stop the administration from firing more probationary workers and obtain relief, such as back pay, for the employees already out of work.
The judges ruled that the firings were carried out unlawfully in accordance with orders from the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources office. Only the agencies themselves have the authority to direct those personnel changes, one of the judges wrote.
Judge James Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland restricted the government from firing any more probationary workers for two weeks. Judge Bredar said the employees covered in the lawsuit, who are from 18 different agencies, must be reinstated by March 17.
Judge William H. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered the government to pause firings and reinstate probationary employees at six agencies while the case continues. His order applied to the Pentagon, the Treasury, and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and the Interior.
Lawyers representing those groups estimated at least 10,000 people were affected across those agencies, numbers more or less consistent with data collected by The Times.
The judge’s orders follow a similar decision handed down by the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent administrative body that reviews government personnel decisions. It ordered on March 5 that certain probationary employees, mostly from the Department of Agriculture, be reinstated for at least 45 days.
What have the fired employees heard?
It depends on who you ask. There does not appear to be a uniform way that agencies are going about reinstating fired probationary employees.
Tim Kauffman, a spokesman for the American Federation of Government Workers, which is involved in one of the cases, said the union does not know how many of its members will be offered their jobs back. Mr. Kauffman said agencies had denied union requests for the number of fired probationary employees.
The union representing workers for the Internal Revenue Service sent an email to probationary employees who were fired, informing them that they were in the process of speaking with agency management about the next steps. In the email, shared with The New York Times, the National Treasury Employees Union said employees with one agency — the Energy Department — have started receiving reinstatement notifications after the court orders on Thursday.
“We are pressing other agencies to issue reinstatement notices as quickly as possible,” the email stated. The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Some employees from the National Institutes of Health were notified of their reinstatement through an email Thursday from the agency’s human resources division.
“Upon further review, the agency has determined to rescind the letter sent to you on 2/15/2025,” the email stated, adding that the National Institutes of Health will work with them on a return to their jobs. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
Some fired probationary employees from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have heard from the agency’s human resources division that reinstatements are underway, according to Cat Farman, the president of the local chapter of the employee union. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
Other fired employees, however, are still getting “off-boarding” messages from the agency, Ms. Farman said, such as reminders to turn in their government-issued equipment.
Does this mean employees will immediately be back at work?
Not necessarily.
The Department of Agriculture, for example, said in a statement this week that it had returned all its fired probationary workers to “pay status” as of Wednesday. The statement did not say how many, or if any, workers would be returning to their jobs.
“The department will work quickly to develop a phased plan for return to duty, and while those plans materialize, all probationary employees will be paid,” the statement said.
But it was not clear that similar information was communicated to all of the fired employees at the agency. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.
“I’m getting really frustrated,” said Jacob Bushno, one of the probationary employees fired. He said he has not received any communications from the agency, and that he had reached out to his human resources department and his managers.
“Zero. No guidance,” he said on Friday. Mr. Bushno, a veteran who did two tours in Iraq while he was in the Army’s air assault division, was fired just seven days before he completed his one-year probationary period at the Forest Service.
“When will we get paid/back pay? Do we get to come back to the office?” he asked.
A probationary employee who was fired from Housing and Urban Development last month similarly has not heard from the agency. The employee spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. The housing agency did not respond to a request for comment. Ashaki Robinson, a representative for the union that represents workers at the agency, said the union has not heard of any fired employees hearing from the agency as of late Friday afternoon.
Can the Trump administration still move forward with other layoffs?
Yes.
The judge’s rulings do not protect anyone from mass firings through other methods in the future. As the rulings came down on Thursday, federal agencies were finalizing plans to cut an even larger swath of the federal work force.
In the Maryland case, the judge told the government that it couldn’t carry out future mass firings without prior notice as required by law.
In the case in California, the judge made plain that agencies planning to conduct large-scale layoffs, known as a “reduction in force,” can still proceed in accordance with the laws that govern such processes — meaning that the reprieves for workers may only be temporary.
Apoorva Mandavilli contributed reporting.
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
Politics
Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget.
“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.
“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”
The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”
SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.
CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE
This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.
Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)
Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.
Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders.
“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said.
“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”
U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023. (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)
He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.
An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.
Politics
Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.
The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.
“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”
Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.
The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.
The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.
“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.
“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”
The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.
“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios