⚖️Supreme Court Lets Trump Slash 600,000 Federal Jobs
Government
Constitutional Law
Judicial Review
On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s pause on President Donald Trump’s rule stripping civil service protections from about 600,000 federal employees. That decision lets agencies fire, furlough or reassign workers without hearings or appeals. Trump says this change helps him reshape agencies faster. Worker advocates warn it hands the president unchecked power over your essential services.
Review Topic
Test your knowledge with interactive questions
10 questions
5:00
10 available
Key Takeaways
- See how the Supreme Court can tip the balance of power by enabling a president’s staff cuts.
- Learn to support legal challenges—lawsuits can still block executive orders you oppose.
- Call your senators to demand Congress approve major federal reorganizations so presidents can’t cut jobs alone.
- Backing federal worker unions and advocacy groups gives employees a stronger voice against unilateral firing.
Influential Figures
No influential figures found.
Some topics may not have prominent individuals directly associated.
Why This Matters
600,000 Workers on the Line:
Roughly 600,000 federal employees could lose job protections, facing firing or furlough without an appeal.
Passport Delays Balloon:
With agencies losing up to 20% of staff, you could wait 6 extra months for a passport or visa.
Taxpayer Bill Soars:
Replacing one federal worker costs about $50,000 in recruiting and training—firing 600,000 could hit taxpayers for up to $30 billion over five years.
President Gains Unchecked Power:
Trump can now reorganize agencies without Congress’s sign-off, sidelining your elected representatives in overseeing federal jobs.
What Others Are Asking
No Questions Yet
Be the first to ask
Detailed Content
5
Which right did roughly 600,000 federal employees lose under the Trump administration’s rule?
Multiple Choice
Government
7
Which amendment’s due-process protections did experts warn could be violated by stripping civil service safeguards?
Multiple Choice
Constitutional Law