"DOD did not have any uniform process for implementing the termination of CBAs," the unions wrote, accusing the Pentagon of issuing a 24‑hour ultimatum that "begat a firestorm of confusion and misinformation" across facilities nationwide.
AFGE and NFFE sue Secretary Hegseth in Maryland
The American Federation for Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) filed suit last week in the U.S. District Court for Maryland challenging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s April directive that ordered the department to terminate most collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with one day’s notice. The unions allege Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and exceeded the authority given by President Trump’s executive order.
How the policy unfolded: executive orders, OPM guidance, and the April memorandum
The litigation traces back to March 2025, when President Trump signed an executive order that, citing a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, removed collective bargaining rights from roughly two‑thirds of the federal workforce on national‑security grounds. Agencies have been implementing that order — and an August 2025 sequel that expanded the ban to more agencies — unevenly, in part because of ongoing litigation between unions and the Justice Department.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) first suggested agencies could "choose" to terminate CBAs in its August guidance and then "changed course" in February, recommending agencies "should" move to terminate their agreements. The AFGE/NFFE complaint highlights that DoD did not act to terminate CBAs in either of those earlier windows and instead waited until Secretary Hegseth’s April memorandum, which the unions say mandated immediate termination within 24 hours.
Unions’ core allegations: chaotic implementation and improper exemptions
The complaint focuses narrowly on DoD’s method of implementation rather than the ultimate validity of the executive orders. According to the unions, the April 9, 2026 decision to terminate CBAs “within 24 hours” came without any plan to carry out a measured or orderly transition. The lawsuit paints a patchwork rollout: some local union leaders were told by phone, others by email or letter, and many received no notice at all as agency counterparts “went ‘radio silent,’ or started refusing to answer routine questions.”
The unions say that confusion led to frontline workers losing union protections even where the executive order itself appears to preserve them. The order exempts “local employing offices” that employ police officers, firefighters, and security guards from losing federal sector labor law coverage, but AFGE and NFFE allege DoD continued to recognize union rights only for first responders, not for dispatchers, IT staff, and other personnel who work alongside them. The complaint asserts that DoD “failed to prepare any list of subdivisions that are not covered by the EO because they employ police officers, firefighters or security guards” before implementing the memorandum, producing inconsistent determinations across the department.
Litigation history cited in the complaint
The unions point to previous litigation as context. A similar challenge last year by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees (IFPTE) resulted in a court order that blocked the Defense Department from terminating that union’s contracts. AFGE and NFFE say their suit deliberately narrows its focus to the Defense Department’s implementation steps and the APA requirement that agencies explain sudden changes in policy — arguing that Hegseth was required to justify both the reversal of longstanding practice and the abrupt 24‑hour timeline.
How DoD employees, unions, and legal advocates are affected
- DoD employees: Many workers found themselves uncertain whether their CBAs remained in effect, the unions say, with different local offices reaching different conclusions about coverage and little centralized communication.
- Unions (AFGE and NFFE): The complaint seeks to restore contractual protections by arguing that the department’s sudden policy change violated the APA and exceeded the executive order’s scope where it purported to strip protections from entire local employing offices.
- Legal advocates and the Justice Department: The case joins a broader slate of litigation over the executive orders, where the Justice Department and unions have been engaged in "pitched legal battle" across more than half a dozen cases, and where earlier court rulings have already blocked DoD action in related circumstances.
The lawsuit frames this as a matter of process as much as policy: the unions do not confine their challenge to the executive orders’ validity but argue that the Pentagon’s abrupt rollout — without an orderly notification mechanism, without lists of exempt subdivisions, and after nearly a year of honoring existing CBAs — violated statutory requirements for reasoned administrative action. The case asks the Maryland federal court to set aside the Defense Department’s April actions and to restore the contractual and statutory rights of affected workers.
Read the original story: Unions sue to restore Pentagon workers' collective-bargaining rights
