Judge blocks Trump order targeting foreign service workers’ union rights

Clinton-appointed judge blocks Trump order targeting foreign service workers’ union rights

Court rules Trump’s collective bargaining rollback “unlawful” in case brought by AFSA

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from eliminating collective bargaining rights for foreign service workers, marking another judicial setback for President Donald Trump’s second-term executive agenda.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction against an executive order signed by Trump earlier this year that sought to end union negotiations across agencies with national security functions. The order affected large swaths of the federal workforce, including diplomats and other foreign service professionals.

The legal challenge was brought by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the principal labor union representing U.S. foreign service personnel. AFSA argued that the executive order infringed on legally protected collective bargaining rights and undermined the effectiveness and accountability of U.S. diplomatic institutions.

“This is a significant victory—not just for our members, but for the integrity of the Foreign Service,” said AFSA President Tom Yazdgerdi. “Collective bargaining helps ensure transparency, professionalism, and trust within agencies that serve our global mission.”

Court cites legal overreach, echoes earlier ruling

In his opinion, Judge Friedman ruled that the Trump order was “unlawful as applied to the Defendants who are heads of agencies with employees represented by the Plaintiff.” He further emphasized that the executive action effectively stripped away bargaining rights for “approximately two-thirds of the federal workforce.”

The language of Friedman’s ruling mirrored an earlier decision he issued in a separate case involving the National Treasury Employees Union, where he also halted similar provisions of Trump’s order.

The administration’s directive was outlined in a White House fact sheet, which framed the move as an effort to prevent “union obstruction” in agencies tasked with national security. The administration claimed that some federal unions had “declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” justifying the rollback in the name of public safety.

White House defends order despite court setback

Despite the ruling, the White House defended the executive order as a necessary move to protect national interests.

“President Trump eliminated collective bargaining agreements that risk national security interests,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “He will always prioritize public safety for the American people.”

The executive order was signed as part of a broader campaign to reshape federal labor policy, reduce what Trump has called “bureaucratic resistance,” and centralize decision-making authority within agency leadership.

Critics, however, say the administration’s approach has undermined workplace rights and weakened government institutions by sidelining long-standing processes designed to protect civil servants from political influence.

Broader implications and political context

The ruling marks another legal challenge to the Trump administration’s efforts to assert sweeping executive power over federal agencies. In recent months, courts have intervened to block or delay several major Trump initiatives, ranging from immigration enforcement to regulatory rollbacks and agency restructuring plans.

While President Trump and his allies argue that these measures are necessary to streamline government and enforce accountability, labor unions and many legal experts warn that they erode established checks and balances.

Judge Friedman’s decision temporarily restores collective bargaining protections for foreign service workers while litigation continues. The preliminary injunction suggests that the court sees the plaintiffs’ case as likely to succeed on the merits — a significant indication as the legal battle moves forward.

With Trump continuing to reshape federal personnel policy and political appointees across agencies, this ruling may be a harbinger of further legal friction between the executive branch and federal workforce advocates.

Stay tuned to The Horizons Times for continuing coverage of legal developments impacting the Trump administration’s labor and national security policies.