On Friday, Sept. 12, Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) did not have the legal authority to terminate probationary employees or execute dismissals without following proper procedures. 

In its totality, this case is another example of the Trump administration overstepping its lawful domain. This concept is perhaps best demonstrated in statistics. At the moment, President Trump is on track to sign 329 executive orders this year. The last president to average more than 100 executive orders in a year was Harry S. Truman in his 2nd term, with an average of 101. 

Probationary employees are newly hired civil servants undergoing an evaluation period in which their capabilities and performance are assessed to determine if they are suited for permanent employment. These employees do not possess the same job security as their permanent counterparts. That is to say, they can be fired more easily and do not have the same procedural rights. 

In total, nearly 25,000 employees were laid off. The Trump administration views this measure as a part of its larger plan to downsize the bureaucracy and decrease federal spending, a task headed by Elon Musk’s former federal stomping grounds, DOGE. 

The conversation of bureaucratic size and scope in an increasingly digitized world is incredibly intricate. The Trump administration is entitled to its view that the government is too large and the platform to make the reforms that they see fit. 

The problem with a government led primarily through executive action, such as the one that prompted the dismissal of many probationary employees, is that it overloads the court system, passes impermanent policy and temporarily circumvents the other branches. In short, a government relying on executive action begins to compromise its democratic tenets. 

In the case of “The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, etc. v. United States Office of Personal Management,” the district court decided that the OPM violated the Administrative Procedure Act. This act dictates federal law on how government agencies operate. In the context of this case, Alsup ruled that the OPM violated the act because it did not exhibit reason-based decision-making behind its actions.

Essentially, the court asserts that OPM decided who to fire, when to fire them and directed several agencies to fire under false pretenses. The latter is reflected in the letter template that the OPM provided to multiple agencies. This template said that employees were dismissed based on performance. 

The reason provided in the letter directly contrasts with the initial message that the OPM gave to the 17 agencies involved. This message urged the agencies to retain only employees deemed “mission-critical.” Furthermore, the criteria of “mission-critical” were not actually in the hands of each agency. Instead, they had to appeal to the “exemption process” of the OPM. 

At face value, the requirement to appeal to the OPM’s “exemption process” may seem logical because certain agencies might claim to need more employees than are actually “mission-critical.” This perspective fails to acknowledge that each agency is made up of experts in that respective field – experts undoubtedly more qualified than the OPM in determining what personnel are needed. 

Additionally, the OPM has a clear partisan slant. Earlier this year, CNN reported that “gaining quick access and control to the data and computer systems of OPM was fundamental to DOGE’s ability to infiltrate key Washington nerve centers. Political appointees and advisers connected to Musk or major tech firms now sit in top leadership positions across agencies that comprise the federal government’s personnel, technology, property and acquisition operations.”

With the OPM’s high-ranking officials loyal to Trump, they were clearly going to advocate for bureaucratic downsizing even when unnecessary. Indeed, this was the basis on which the case that Alsup presided over was based. 

The OPM’s behavior in the litigation of the case further showcases the dangerous centralization of executive power taking place at the moment. Not only did the OPM act illegally, but they also attempted to prevent the judicial system’s constitutional right to review and check its power. 

This sacrifice of democratic values is an incredibly short-sighted endeavor solely concerned with the volume of policy that can be passed, neglecting key voices and demographics elsewhere in the government. It reflects the growing polarization within our nation and sets the precedent for erosion of the rule of law. It calls us, as citizens, to recognize that our democracy is not as secure as we presume it to be. 

The maintenance of our way of life as Americans requires constant attention not only to the proclaimed ends of those who represent us in government, but also the means they use to achieve it.