(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)
Bob Bussel, University of Oregon
(THE CONVERSATION) As the Trump administration seeks to shrink the federal workforce, slash nonmilitary spending and curb opposition to its policies, it is taking steps beyond the firing and furloughing of thousands of government workers.
The government is also trying to strip hundreds of thousands of federal employees of their right to bargain collectively and have a voice in their conditions of employment.
Citing “national security” concerns, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 27, 2025, that canceled collective bargaining agreements at more than 30 federal agencies, commissions and programs, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration. A judge temporarily blocked the order’s enforcement on April 25.
Over three decades of researching American unions, I’ve never witnessed such a sweeping assault on collective bargaining rights, which give workers represented by unions the ability to negotiate with employers about the terms of their employment.
But advocates of strong labor rights should have known what might be in store given the labor policies recommended by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. That document, which Trump disavowed on the campaign trail in 2024 but has embraced in practice during his second term, questions whether public-sector unions should exist at all.
Keeping Americans ‘safe’
The Trump administration’s broad attack on federal workers’ rights arrived less than three weeks after an earlier, similar action by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
On March 7, Noem announced that the government was scrapping collective bargaining rights for all Transportation Security Administration workers, eliminating a 2024 agreement. She cited what she called an “irreconcilable conflict” between union representation for those 47,000 federal workers and national security.
Only a “flexible, at-will” workforce can possess the “organizational agility” needed to “safeguard our transportation systems and keep Americans safe,” she said. Employers may fire “at-will” workers at their discretion with few limitations.
Noem’s claim that unions and national security aren’t compatible strikes me as disingenuous.
Unionized workforces have displayed in recent history both patriotism and dedication in their efforts to keep Americans safe. Unionized firefighters, police officers and other first responders rushed to the World Trade Center attempting to rescue those trapped inside on 9/11, for example.
Similarly, many unionized public-sector workers risked their health during the toxic cleanup that followed the terrorist attacks.
It is also worth noting that veterans comprise approximately 30% of the federal workforce. Their history of military service attests, I would argue, to their clear record of demonstrating loyalty and patriotism.
To my eye, the argument that federal workers belonging to unions compromises national security appears to be more rooted in ideology than evidence.
TSA as a case study
The TSA emerged as part of President George W. Bush’s administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001; it designated newly hired airport security officers as federal employees.
At the time, Bush insisted that TSA security officers should not belong to a union. He invoked national security concerns, arguing that union representation would undercut the “culture of urgency” needed to wage the “war on terrorism.”
TSA employees finally gained collective bargaining rights during the Obama administration when they joined the American Federation of Government Employees in 2011.
But after joining a union, TSA workers were still paid less than most federal employees. And they still couldn’t appeal disciplinary cases outside of TSA’s authority to the external board used by other federal employees that they viewed as more impartial.
However, in recent years, TSA workers have obtained wage increases and stronger rights of appeal, along with other advances contained in a 2024 collective bargaining agreement that the American Federation of Government Employees described as “groundbreaking.” These gains included uniform allowances, greater input on safety concerns and a pledge to examine expanded child care options.
Now, the union has sued Noem, another Trump administration official and the TSA itself to block the administration’s rollback of these workers’ rights and protect their 2024 contract.
JFK empowered federal workers
Federal employees had historically organized unions to advocate and lobby for their interests.
However, these unions lacked the formal ability to negotiate with the federal government in a collective bargaining process where, as labor scholar Robert Repas has explained, “decisions are made jointly, rather than unilaterally,” or ultimately at managerial discretion.
Their members did not gain collective bargaining rights until 1962 when President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order making that possible. Kennedy’s action reflected the view that government employees should not be denied basic union rights enjoyed by their private sector counterparts.
Acknowledging concerns that union rights might limit the ability to exercise centralized command and control, Kennedy’s directive exempted the FBI, CIA and other agencies charged with national security functions from collective bargaining.
Federal employees covered by the 1962 executive order were also barred from striking. They could not negotiate over wages and benefits; power to make these decisions remained in the hands of Congress.
In 1978, Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act, which expanded the right of federal employees to collectively bargain for better working conditions, which its authors said were “in the public interest.” This law created an authority to oversee federal labor relations and established an appeals board to adjudicate worker grievances.
Although federal employees did not enjoy as many rights as most union members in the private sector, they did gain a stronger voice in determining their working conditions and accessing grievance procedures to address workplace issues and concerns.
Reagan and the air traffic controllers union
Three years later, however, President Ronald Reagan fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers who had gone on strike, even though they lacked the right to do so. The Federal Labor Relations Authority subsequently decertified their union, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization – known as PATCO.
The strike’s failure seriously diminished the economic and political leverage of all U.S. unions for years. Membership in private-sector unions has declined sharply, while public-sector union membership remained relatively stable at about 1 in 3 workers. Overall, just under 10% of U.S. workers belonged to a union in 2024.
Besides seriously diminishing the labor movement’s power and influence, the PATCO strike also had important political consequences. In his book about this labor dispute, historian Joseph McCartin wrote that crushing the PATCO strike led the Republican Party “in the direction of an unambiguous antiunionism” and a heightened antipathy toward unions in the public sector.
Long-term goal
The White House’s attack on federal unions represents an attempt to fulfill a longtime ambition of conservative activists.
Executive orders, which can be rescinded by any president, lack the power of laws.
But Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, both Republicans, introduced a bill in March that would enshrine Trump’s executive order in law. If that bill were to become law, it would “end federal labor unions and immediately terminate their collective bargaining agreements,” Lee and Blackburn have said.
Meanwhile, eight House Republicans have asked the president to reverse course on collective bargaining rights, as have all House Democrats. A bipartisan group of senators has made a similar request.
As the courts make their determinations and political opposition gathers, the American public has, I believe, an important question to answer. Is the spirit of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 – that “labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest” – worth upholding?
This question warrants careful consideration and scrutiny. How the courts, Congress and the public respond will have enormous consequences for federal workers and the future of the union movement and the state of American democracy.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-attempt-to-nix-the-labor-rights-of-thousands-of-federal-workers-on-national-security-grounds-furthers-the-gops-long-held-anti-union-agenda-252347.