As the Trump administration tries to shrink the federal workforce, cut non-military spending and curb opposition to its policies, it is taking steps to surpass the firing and cutting of thousands of government workers.

The government also attempts to deprive thousands of federal employees of shared bargaining power and comment on their employment conditions.

President Donald Trump cited the concern of "national security" and issued an executive order on March 27, 2025 that canceled collective bargaining agreements for more than 30 federal agencies, committees and programs, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration. The judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of the order on April 25.

In my thirty years of studying the United States union, I have never witnessed such a widespread attack on collective bargaining rights, which has allowed unions to represent workers in the ability to negotiate with employers on their employment terms.

But, given the labour policy recommended by Heritage Foundation’s 2025 project, advocates of strong labor rights should know what the store might have. Trump rejected the document in 2024 on the campaign, but has accepted the question of whether public sector unions should exist during his second term.

Make sure Americans are "safe"

The Trump administration’s widespread attack on federal workers’ rights has come after a similar action by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

On March 7, Neum announced that the government is canceling collective bargaining rights for all transportation safety managers and canceling the 2024 agreement. She cited what she called “irreconcilable conflict” between her so-called 47,000 federal workers and national security union representatives.

She said only a “flexible, willful” workforce can have the “organizational agility” needed to “protect our transportation systems and keep Americans safe.” Employers may “will” worker launch restrictions at their sole discretion.

Noem claims that unions and national security are not compatible, which makes me feel dishonest.

In recent history, union labor has shown patriotism and dedication in its efforts to ensure Americans are safe. For example, union firefighters, police officers and other first responders rushed to the World Trade Center to try to rescue people trapped inside 9/11.

Similarly, many union public sector workers risk health in toxic cleanups following terrorist attacks.

It is also worth noting that veterans make up about 30% of the federal workforce. I think their military service history proves a clear record of their display of loyalty and patriotism.

In my opinion, the argument that federal workers who belong to unions undermine national security seems to be more ideology-based than evidence.

TSA as a case study

TSA became part of President George W. Bush's response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It designates newly hired airport security officials as federal employees.

At the time, Bush insisted that TSA security personnel should not belong to the union. He cited national security issues and argued that union representatives would weaken the "culture of urgency" needed to launch a "war on terrorism."

TSA employees eventually gained collective bargaining rights when the Obama administration joined the United States Government Employees Federation in 2011.

But after joining the union, TSA workers still pay less than most federal employees. And, they still cannot appeal to other federal employees for disciplinary cases outside of TSA authorization, which they believe is more just.

But in recent years, TSA workers have received higher wages and stronger appeal rights, as well as other advances contained in a 2024 collective bargaining agreement, which U.S. government employees have been called “groundbreaking.” These benefits include uniform allowances, greater investment in safety issues and a commitment to checking for expanded child care options.

Now, the union has sued Norm, another Trump administration official and the TSA itself to prevent the administration from rolling back the rights of these workers and protecting its 2024 contract.

Kennedy authorizes federal workers

Federal employees have historically organized unions to advocate and lobby for their interests.

However, these unions lack the formal ability to negotiate with the federal government during collective bargaining, as labor scholar Robert Repas explains, “decisions are made together, not unilaterally” or ultimately managed discretion.

It was not until 1962 when John F. Kennedy issued an executive order that their members were granted collective bargaining rights. Kennedy’s actions reflect the view that government employees should not deny basic union rights enjoyed by their private sector.

Recognizing union rights may limit the exercise of centralized command and control capabilities, Kennedy’s directive exempts collective bargaining from the FBI, the CIA and other agencies accused of having national security functions.

Federal employees covered by the 1962 executive order were also banned from crackdowns. They cannot negotiate wages and interests; the power to make these decisions remains in the hands of Congress.

In 1978, Congress passed the Public Reform Act, which expanded federal employees’ rights to bargain together to raise working conditions, which its authors say is “in the public interest.” The law created the power to oversee federal labor-management relations and established an appeal board that ruled workers’ dissatisfaction.

While federal employees do not have as many rights as most union members in the private sector, they do have a stronger voice in determining their working conditions and accessing grievance processes to address workplace issues and concerns.

Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers Alliance

However, three years later, President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers, despite their lack of the right to do so. The Federal Labor and Industrial Relations Agency then unionized its trade union, a professional air traffic controller organization (called PATCO).

The failure of the strike seriously undermined the economic and political leverage of all U.S. unions. Membership in private alliances has dropped sharply, while public sector union membership remains relatively stable, with about one-third of workers. Overall, 10% of American workers belong to unions in 2024.

In addition to severely reducing the power and influence of the Labor movement, the PATCO strike also had important political consequences. Historian Joseph McCartin writes in his book The Labor and Capital Dispute that the crushing Patco strike led the Republicans “in a clear anti-creationist direction” and increased resentment to the unions in the public sector.

Long-term goals

The White House attack on federal unions represents an attempt to realize the long-term ambitions of conservative activists.

Executive orders can be cancelled by any president, lacking legal powers.

But Mike Lee of Utah and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee both introduced a bill in March that would cover Trump's legal executive order. Lee and Blackburn said if the bill becomes law, it would "end the federal union and immediately terminate its collective bargaining agreement."

Meanwhile, eight House Republicans and all House Democrats have asked the president to turn around the path of collective bargaining power. Senators from both parties have made similar requests.

When courts make rulings and political opposition, the American public raises an important question. The spirit of the Public Reform Act of 1978 is that “labor organizations and collective bargaining among civil servants are in the public interest” – is it worth maintaining?

This issue requires careful consideration and review. The response from the courts, Congress and the public will have huge consequences for the federal workers, as well as the coalition movement and the future of American democracy.