March 14, 2025 • 33 mins
Federal judges have delivered a stunning rebuke to the current administration's attempt to terminate thousands of government workers, with one California judge calling the firings "a sham" designed to circumvent legal protections for federal employees.
The dramatic courtroom confrontation began when the administration refused to produce witnesses who could explain the mass terminations, instead sending lawyers with what the judge described as "press releases" and "sham documents." Visibly frustrated, the judge ruled from the bench that the Office of Personnel Management had "no authority whatsoever" to direct agencies to fire employees, ordering immediate reinstatement for thousands of workers across multiple departments including Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury.
The judge highlighted the case of Leandra Bailey, who received "fully successful in every category" performance reviews only to be terminated with a template letter falsely citing performance issues. "It is a sad day when our government would fire good employees and say it was based on performance, when they know good and well that that's a lie," the judge declared, noting this approach would deprive workers of unemployment benefits and damage future job prospects.
A second federal judge in Maryland quickly followed with a similar ruling covering additional agencies, creating overlapping orders that effectively dismantle the administration's personnel purge. Meanwhile, the administration faces additional embarrassment from reports of CDC employees being directed to work at closed Subway sandwich shops and storage facilities through a poorly implemented "Space Match" program, while an OPM spokesperson was busy posting fashion influencer videos from her government office.
The courthouse victories represent a significant check on executive authority and provide immediate relief to thousands of federal workers caught in the crossfire of administrative overreach. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring daily and relying on government services, these rulings underscore the critical importance of maintaining a functional, properly staffed federal workforce operating within the boundaries of established law.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is a sham.
There were some fireworks inthe news on yesterday, so let me
get to it.
Most importantly, I think thatthousands of people fired by the
current administration aregetting their jobs back, because
the first round of proverbialfireworks that went off in the
(00:22):
California federal courthouseproverbial fireworks that went
off in the California federalcourthouse, and I'm going to set
the scene for you here.
I have the transcripts of whathappened and I've been thinking
about it and I really want toshare it with you.
So here's the scene the Trumpadministration sent a lawyer to
defend them in the case of thefederal court in North Carolina
(00:45):
I'm sorry, in NorthernCalifornia but they were
refusing to send any officialsfrom the Trump administration to
testify in the case, to explainwhat they had done and to be
questioned about it.
The basis of the case is whatthe Trump White House, the
Office of Personal Managementand the Trump White House told
federal agencies last monthextensively to fire tens of
(01:08):
thousands of people who work forthe government potentially
hundreds and thousands of peopleand then, after the Trump White
House, the Office of PersonalManagement told the agencies to
fire all those people.
Then all those people got firedand it really does not seem
like it was legal.
It has never seemed like it waslegal that the White House
(01:29):
would have the authority to makethose kinds of mass firings.
But again, they won't sendanybody to testify about what
exactly they did.
So this is from the transcriptsof the lawyer who is suing the
Trump administration says thisyour honor, quote what we have
before the court is recordevidence that conclusively
(01:51):
establishes that the OPMdirected terminations at issue.
We have a very unusualcircumstance where the
government has not mounted, hasnot attempted to say they can
factually dispute that they haveactually withdrawn the
declaration by which they areattempting to dispute that and
there's no record evidence onthe other side by which they
(02:14):
have disputed this fact.
The judge says I tend to agreewith you on that and the
government, I believe, has triedto frustrate the judge's
ability to get the truth of whathappened here and then set
forth a sham of declarations towithdrew it to substitute
(02:35):
another.
That's not the way it works inthe US District Court.
So that word was substituted.
The judge says quote I'm goingto talk to the government about
that in a minute.
I have expected to have anevidentiary hearing today in
which these people would testify, and if they wanted to get your
(02:57):
people on the stand, I wasgoing to make that happen too.
It would be fair, but insteadwe have been frustrated in that.
The judge then says the lawyerfor the plaintiffs quote I'd
like to hear your views on whatrelief should issue today.
And then the judge, infrustration, actually spelled
T-O-D-A-Y today.
(03:18):
The lawyer Thank you, yourHonor, we're all aligned in
waiting and wanting this tohappen as well he spelled out
today.
And then so they have aconversation the judge, the
lawyer, the plaintiff who issuing the Trump administration
on behalf of the fired employees.
They all walk and talk aboutwhat fired employees who are
(03:40):
suing the Trump administration,what they're seeking from the
judge today, the kind of reliefthey want.
They say they want a list ofeverybody who's been fired that
they haven't been able to get,or even enumeration from the
government on how many peoplehave been fired.
They also want the people whowere fired to be reinstated if
they have been fired illegally.
(04:00):
So they go through all thesedetails.
Then what happens is it's timefor the Trump administration's
lawyer to make his side of thecase and he starts explaining to
the judge that all these fireworkers the only reason they
were fired is because nobodywanted them.
Nobody told anybody to fireanyone.
There was no instruction tofire people.
(04:20):
These are just unwanted workers.
If anybody wanted them back,they surely would have been
hired by now, right Now, at thispoint the judge interjects.
The judge says, quote well,maybe that's why we need an
injunction to tell them torehire them.
You will not bring the peoplein here to be cross-examined.
(04:43):
You are afraid to do so becauseyou know that cross-examining
would reveal the truth.
Trump administration lawyerthen tries to interject
respectfully.
The judge continues this is theUS District Court.
Whenever you submitdeclarations, those people
should be submitted tocross-examination, just like the
plaintiff's side should be, andthen we get the truth or
(05:07):
whatever your story is actuallytrue.
I tend to doubt it now.
I tend to doubt that you aretelling me the truth whenever we
hear all the evidence.
Eventually, why can't you bringyour people in to be
cross-examined or deposed at atime of their convenience?
I said two hours for Mr Ezell.
Mr Ezell is the acting head ofthe OPM.
(05:30):
I said two hours for Mr Ezell,a deposition at his convenience,
and you withdrew hisdeclaration rather than to do
that.
Come on, that is a sham.
The judge says quote go ahead,I'm in, I'm in it and I'm.
It upsets me.
I want you to know that I havebeen practicing or serving in
(05:53):
the court for over 50 years andI know how we get to the truth.
And you're not helping me getto the truth, you're giving me
press releases, sham documents,all right.
He says quote I'm actuallygetting mad at you and I
shouldn't.
The judge didn't decide it inthis hearing today that he
wasn't going to wait to give aruling.
(06:15):
He decided you know what I'veactually heard enough.
He decided he's going to rulefrom the bench today.
No-transcript theirprobationary or trial period.
(06:52):
Then the lead termination of alot of people.
The judge says but one inparticular.
I will give you an exampleLeandra Bailey, who is a
physical science informationspecialist in Alaric.
In September of last year shereceived a performance review in
which she was quote fullysuccessful in every single
(07:14):
category, not just some, butevery single category.
On February 13th she wasterminated using the OPM
template letter because, inaddition to directing these
terminations, opm gave aproposed letter and the letter
said I am reading from it inmemorandum from Leandra Bailey,
february 13th, from the directorof human services management at
(07:35):
the U S four service.
This is just one sentence.
The agency finds, based on yourperformance, that you have not
demonstrated that you uh, thatyour further employment at the
agency would be in the publicinterest.
Close quote.
And then the judge says despitethe fact that her most recent
review was fully successful inevery category.
(07:57):
The judge goes on to say now,how could it be?
You might ask that the agencycould find that based on her.
You might ask that the agencycould find that based on her
performance, when herperformance had been stellar.
The reason the OPM wanted toput this based on performance
was, at least in part, in myjudgment, as a gimmick, because
the law always allows you tofire someone based on
(08:19):
performance.
The judge then goes on to saynow, what I'm about to say is
not the legal basis for what I'mgoing to order today, but I
just want to say it.
He goes on to say it is a sadday when our government would
fire some good employees and sayit was based on performance,
when they know good and wellthat that's a lie.
(08:41):
Excellent in all, fully what aphrase.
I don't want to misstate it.
Quote fully successful in everycategory.
Yet they terminate her based onperformance.
That should not have been donein our country.
It was a sham in order to avoidstation statutory requirements.
(09:04):
In order to avoid statutoryrequirements, it also happens to
be whenever you fire somebodybased on performance, then they
can't get unemployment insurance, can they?
So that makes it even worse,doesn't it?
And then it makes it even worsebecause the next employer is
going to say have you ever beenterminated based on performance?
And if they're honest, they'regoing to have to say yes to
(09:24):
thousands of people.
It is an illustration ofmanipulation that was going on
by the OPM to try to orchestratethis government while
termination of a probationaryemployee.
The court finds that the OPM diddirect all agencies to
terminate the probationaryemployees.
The court rejects thegovernment's attempt to use
(09:44):
these press releases and to readbetween the lines to say the
agencies had made their owndecisions with no direction from
the OPM.
The relief that's going to begranted is therefore as follows
First, the temporary restrainingorder will be extended.
The VA shall immediately offerreinstatement to any and all
(10:05):
probationary employeesterminated on or about February
13th or 14th.
This order finds that all suchterminations were directed by
defendant, the OPM, and wereunlawful because the OPM had no
authority to do so.
Further, the VA shall cease anyand all use of the template
(10:25):
termination notice provided bythe OPM and shall immediately
advise all probationaryemployees terminated February
13th and 14th that that noticeand termination has been found
to be unlawful by the DistrictCourt of Northern District of
California.
The VA shall cease anytermination of probationary
(10:46):
employees and the direction ofthe OPM.
To repeat, the order holds thatthe OPM has no authority
whatsoever to direct the orderor require in any way that any
agency fire any employee.
Now, given the arguments andthe facts in this case, namely,
the defendants have attempted torecast these directions as mere
guidance my order today furthersays further prohibit
(11:09):
defendants from giving anyguidance as to whether any
employee anywhere should beterminated.
Any termination of agencyemployees must be made by the
agencies themselves and, made atall, that they must be made in
the conformity with the CivilService Reform Act and the
(11:35):
Reduction Act and the Force Actand many other constitutional.
Or.
The judge goes on to sayprobationary employees
terminated on or about February13th and 14th, with an
explanation as to each of whathas done to comply with this
order.
Then the judge goes on to saynow this order.
So far I have only mentionedthe VA, the Veterans
Administration, but the samerelief I have decided is to be
(11:58):
extended and I'm not going torepeat it.
But I am extending the samerelief to the Department of
Agriculture, to the Departmentof same relief to the Department
of Agriculture, to theDepartment of Defense, to the
Department of Energy, to theDepartment of the Interior, to
the Department of the Treasury,and so is the VA, plus all of
those other agencies.
He says this is withoutprejudice to extending the
(12:20):
relief later and further toother agencies.
The judge then closes with this.
I will try to get out a shortand random opinion that
elaborates on this order, butthis order, as it counts, shall
go into effect immediately.
Please do not go back to youroffice and say, oh, we are
waiting for a written order,this is an order from the bench.
(12:45):
And then the judge closes with aadmonition to the Trump
administration, quote if youwant to appeal to the court of
appeals, god bless you.
I want you to because I'm tiredof seeing you.
I'm tired of seeing youstonewall on trying to get at
(13:07):
the truth.
And with that, that is howthousands of people who work in
the government, who the currentadministration and its top
campaign donor tried to fire.
That is how thousands ofAmericans got their jobs back
yesterday at the VA, at USDA, atthe Defense Department, at the
(13:30):
Department of Energy and theDepartment of the Interior,
which includes the National ParkServices, and at the Treasury
Department, which of courseincludes the IRS.
Court rulings also mean that theOffice of Personnel Management,
which they have been using aslike a central office for all
this stuff that DOGE has beendoing, the Office of at personal
management at the white housecan no longer tell anyone
(13:54):
anything about anybody whoshould be fired for any reason
from any part of the usgovernment.
This is the order you know ifthey're getting um reamed out by
a judge like that and losing soresoundingly in court that they
didn't just reverse thedecision, it was thousands of
(14:17):
people.
Thousands of people got theirjob back.
It was not only that.
The judge told his agency don'tyou even try to do anything
like that ever again.
And, by the way you've beentelling this court appears not
to be true.
The next time it's going to bebig trouble because you'll be
under oath before the court.
(14:40):
Something like this happens.
The person that is the spokesmanfor the agency that has just
been slicing dice in court wouldput out some response, but that
was not the case for thespokesperson at the OPM
(15:04):
yesterday the OPM, I should say,and that is because she was
actually somewhat busy, becauseon yesterday, cnn reported that
inside of her office at the OPM,the OPM spokesperson was very
busy posting dozens of fashioninfluencer videos inside of her
(15:25):
government office in which sheblows kisses and twirls and
shows off all her differentlooks, and then she posts links
to where you can buy the amazingfashion that she's been wearing
to her job in the office whereshe works as a spokesperson for
the OPM.
Now, this is the spokespersonat an agency that has been
(15:46):
firing thousands of park rangersand scientists and nuclear
security experts, becauseobviously those people don't
deserve their jobs, unlikehashtag her and the Trump folks
at the OPM right who definitelyknow what they're doing and who
definitely deserve their jobsbecause they're doing such a
(16:07):
good job at them, and whodefinitely deserve their jobs
because they're doing such agood job at them.
The story about the OPMspokesperson that broke
yesterday apparently she stillhas her job because, well, why
wouldn't she?
Meanwhile, the administrationis doing its management of the
(16:30):
federal government.
Just in today's news and thisis coming out of the Washington
Post quote last week, amid thescramble inside federal agencies
to meet Trump's return tooffice mandate, one CDC employee
received links to a newgovernment-wide initiative
promising to connect those whoneed workspaces with those who
have extra seats.
(16:51):
When the CDC employee enteredher home address to find nearby
office spaces, she was surprisedto receive a suggestion from a
closed Subway sandwich shop anda self-storage facility.
Another member of her CDC teamwas directed to a post office.
So they work at the CDC.
They were told to report towork.
(17:13):
The Trump administration toldthem to report for work at a
post office or a closed subwaysandwich shop or in a mini
storage.
Now these are CDC employees.
So you work for a federalscientific agency and you're
asked by the administration tofill out a similar space request
(17:34):
form as part of the newadministration's rollout of such
services, including one they'recalling Space Match, aimed at
connecting federal employeeswith offices where they could
work.
But then, when you enter, thefederal scientific agency worker
entered the information.
The two closest offices to whichwas recommended did not seem to
(17:55):
be a place for federal officesat all.
Quote one appeared to be abuilding in an industrial zone
that appeared to her supportgroups for people dealing with
alcohol and debt problems.
The other appeared to be aprivate home in a four-unit
building.
So this is a person who has ajob for the Federal Scientific
(18:18):
Agency.
They have been told by thecurrent administration that they
have a new high-tech tool, afancy new website that is
assigned to a person a new placeto work.
And the new place to work thatthis person has is a choice they
can either be a rehab or thehouse of someone who this person
(18:39):
doesn't know.
Space match I bet it has an xon it somewhere as well.
Space Space Match just becausethey wanted to, I guess, be so
efficient.
Now, of course, people weregoing to inevitably say that
(18:59):
this was just you know, onecourt, one court that is trying
to overrule the mandate of theexecutive branch.
And, of course, when you lookat the press release, it didn't
come out from the OPM, it cameout from the press secretary,
(19:24):
who, of course, just said well,you know, one judge is trying to
undo the power of the executive.
But then it got a little moreinteresting, because the federal
judge in California that issuedthe blistering ruling from the
bench in which he ordered theTrump administration to rehire
(19:47):
the thousands of people they hadfired from the federal
government and the USDA, theDefense Department, the Energy
Department, the Department ofInterior, the Treasury
Department and the VA got aninteresting update, because that
case the California federalcase the plaintiffs are the
union-representing governmentworkers.
(20:08):
The plaintiffs ended up goingback to the same judge in
California and essentially saidthank you for the ruling.
Your honor, can you please makethis so it applies to even more
agencies?
So now they have formally askedthe judge to expand that order
today and also to reinstatefederal employees at the
(20:32):
Commerce Department, theEducation Department, health and
Human Services, homelandSecurity, housing and Urban
Development, the JusticeDepartment, the Department of
Transportation, theEnvironmental Protections Agency
, nasa and the National ScienceFoundation and the Small
Business Administration.
(20:52):
And what happened after that?
After those plaintiffs askedCalifornia's federal judge to
expand his ruling and order evenmore agencies to rehire even
more people, a second federaljudge across the country, in
Maryland, issued a ruling in anentirely separate case ordering
the federal government to alsorehire thousands of fired
(21:14):
federal employees.
Rehire thousands of firedfederal employees.
The federal judge in Marylandsaid that they ordered the
thousands of fired probationaryemployees must now be restated
at the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Defense, theDepartment of Education, the
Department of Energy, theDepartment of Health and Human
Services, the Department ofHomeland Security, housing and
(21:36):
Urban Development, theDepartment of the Interior, the
Department of Health and HumanServices, the Department of
Homeland Security, housing andUrban Development, the
Department of the Interior, theDepartment of Labor, the
Department of Transportation,the Treasury Department, the VA,
the USAID, the ConsumerFinancial Protection Bureau, the
EPA, the FDIC, the GeneralService Administration, the
Office of Personnel Management,the Small Business
Administration and the NationalArchives and Records
Administration.
The Small BusinessAdministration and the National
(21:56):
Archives and RecordsAdministration all of them
reinstate all of your firedemployees who are in
probationary periods.
And this seems like there's anoverlap there.
That's because it was the listin those two cases were as
overlapped on purpose and thatis because into the news, when
(22:17):
you have the overlapping federalrulings ordering the immediate
reinstatement of thousands ofemployees and multifederal
agencies and in maryland thejudge wrote it like this the new
order that's just out, quotethe law is clear that when
dismissing an employee due tounsatisfactory performances, the
(22:41):
employer must honestly bedissatisfied with the
probationer's conduct orperformance, after giving him or
her a fair trial under federallaw on the job.
So again, two federal judgeswith the same equal sweeping
rulings, both in the samedirection, both telling the
(23:03):
Trump administration when youfired these people, you had no
right to do so.
Give them back their jobsimmediately.
I said this fight was going tocome between the courts and the
executive, that this was the bigfight, and it seems like we're
(23:25):
about 56 days in.
The fight is already here.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Doctor he's flatlining.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
We need to get him into surgery.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Sorry, you can't do that.
What are you talking about?
Who are you?
I'm your Republican congressman.
Now that we're in charge, wedefunded Medicare and we're not
paying for this surgery.
This man is dying Now get outof the hospital.
I won the last election.
I'm not going anywhere, butdon't worry.
(23:55):
We made sure Medicare stillcovers Viagra and I need a
refill.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Now Congressman John Lawson from Connecticut is not
pleased with what's been goingon, not pleased with Elon Musk,
not pleased with Doge, and hegave a barn burner of a speech
and it was a clip that kind ofwent viral, where he's talking
(24:24):
about Social Security and resortto saying you will do whatever
Elon Musk and Donald Trump tellyou to do.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Where's the independence of the committee?
He's talking to the chairman.
Where's the legislature?
We're an equal branch ofgovernment and you start off
with a blather and yet look atthe empty seats here.
Where's Elon Musk?
I'm sure he's a genius and is avery credible person because of
(25:01):
the wealth he's accumulated,but that does not put him above
the law or the responsibility tocome before this committee, in
this Congress.
If he's so great, if theseplans and all the fraud and
abuse that he found are soeminent, why isn't he here
explaining it?
You know why?
(25:22):
Because he's out to privatizeSocial Security.
He's been on television thelast couple of days talking
exactly about Social Security,medicare and Medicaid and what
he intends to do Privatize it.
The American people some of themmay have been born at night,
(25:45):
but not last night People areaware of this, every single one
of your districts, all the moneythat comes in monthly and you
have not done you as a Congresshave not done anything in more
than 54 years, and now you havesomeone coming in to privatize a
system, something you havelonged to do, going back to 1982
(26:10):
, because Elon Musk thinks thatthis is the best thing to do.
President Trump has calledSocial Security a scam.
Elon Musk has determined, as MrNeal said, called it a Ponzi
scheme.
Ask that of the people in yourdistrict.
Ask that, mr Smith, of the morethan 198,000 people in your
(26:37):
district who rely on SocialSecurity.
And you won't even let theperson who's planning to
privatize it, who's telling thebig lie in front of everyone, as
bold as he possibly can, sayingthis is what we're going to do.
The Congress is in our backpocket.
We don't even have to comebefore them and testify, because
(27:00):
we control the House, wecontrol the Senate and we
control the presidency.
And it's the tyranny of theexecutive.
It's why these revolutions werefirst adopted back in 1789,
because the founding fathersknew that the executive branch
does not have total authorityover the legislature.
(27:23):
Unless you have a willing partythat says no, we're going to do
exactly what you tell us to do,mr musk and mr president.
It doesn't matter to ourconstituents, it doesn't matter
how much money they are notgoing to receive, we're not even
going to tell them the truthabout what's going to happen to
(27:45):
them shut down and theirpersonnel, as Mr Neal said Dan,
after you cut and eliminate, thepeople say the agency isn't
responding accordingly.
No other agency operates forunder less than 1%.
(28:07):
With that they administer toover 70 million people in the
nation's number one anti-povertyprogram for the elderly and
children.
Shame.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
Yeah, 10,000.
That's the number I need youguys to look up 10,000 baby
boomers so far.
Retire a day, 10,000 a day, andgo on to Social Security.
It's not a damn pausing scheme.
(28:42):
These people have worked theirentire lives, they have paid
into it, the money has beentaken out of their checks and
they earn the money.
It's theirs.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
See you on the next episode.
This is a sham.
There were some fireworks inthe news on yesterday, so let me
get to it.
Most importantly, I think thatthousands of people fired by the
current administration aregetting their jobs back, because
the first round of proverbialfireworks that went off in the
(00:22):
California federal courthouseproverbial fireworks that went
off in the California federalcourthouse, and I'm going to set
the scene for you here.
I have the transcripts of whathappened and I've been thinking
about it and I really want toshare it with you.
So here's the scene the Trumpadministration sent a lawyer to
defend them in the case of thefederal court in North Carolina
(00:45):
I'm sorry, in NorthernCalifornia but they were
refusing to send any officialsfrom the Trump administration to
testify in the case, to explainwhat they had done and to be
questioned about it.
The basis of the case is whatthe Trump White House, the
Office of Personal Managementand the Trump White House told
federal agencies last monthextensively to fire tens of
(01:08):
thousands of people who work forthe government potentially
hundreds and thousands of peopleand then, after the Trump White
House, the Office of PersonalManagement told the agencies to
fire all those people.
Then all those people got firedand it really does not seem
like it was legal.
It has never seemed like it waslegal that the White House
(01:29):
would have the authority to makethose kinds of mass firings.
But again, they won't sendanybody to testify about what
exactly they did.
So this is from the transcriptsof the lawyer who is suing the
Trump administration says thisyour honor, quote what we have
before the court is recordevidence that conclusively
(01:51):
establishes that the OPMdirected terminations at issue.
We have a very unusualcircumstance where the
government has not mounted, hasnot attempted to say they can
factually dispute that they haveactually withdrawn the
declaration by which they areattempting to dispute that and
there's no record evidence onthe other side by which they
(02:14):
have disputed this fact.
The judge says I tend to agreewith you on that and the
government, I believe, has triedto frustrate the judge's
ability to get the truth of whathappened here and then set
forth a sham of declarations towithdrew it to substitute
(02:35):
another.
That's not the way it works inthe US District Court.
So that word was substituted.
The judge says quote I'm goingto talk to the government about
that in a minute.
I have expected to have anevidentiary hearing today in
which these people would testify, and if they wanted to get your
(02:57):
people on the stand, I wasgoing to make that happen too.
It would be fair, but insteadwe have been frustrated in that.
The judge then says the lawyerfor the plaintiffs quote I'd
like to hear your views on whatrelief should issue today.
And then the judge, infrustration, actually spelled
T-O-D-A-Y today.
(03:18):
The lawyer Thank you, yourHonor, we're all aligned in
waiting and wanting this tohappen as well he spelled out
today.
And then so they have aconversation the judge, the
lawyer, the plaintiff who issuing the Trump administration
on behalf of the fired employees.
They all walk and talk aboutwhat fired employees who are
(03:40):
suing the Trump administration,what they're seeking from the
judge today, the kind of reliefthey want.
They say they want a list ofeverybody who's been fired that
they haven't been able to get,or even enumeration from the
government on how many peoplehave been fired.
They also want the people whowere fired to be reinstated if
they have been fired illegally.
(04:00):
So they go through all thesedetails.
Then what happens is it's timefor the Trump administration's
lawyer to make his side of thecase and he starts explaining to
the judge that all these fireworkers the only reason they
were fired is because nobodywanted them.
Nobody told anybody to fireanyone.
There was no instruction tofire people.
(04:20):
These are just unwanted workers.
If anybody wanted them back,they surely would have been
hired by now, right Now, at thispoint the judge interjects.
The judge says, quote well,maybe that's why we need an
injunction to tell them torehire them.
You will not bring the peoplein here to be cross-examined.
(04:43):
You are afraid to do so becauseyou know that cross-examining
would reveal the truth.
Trump administration lawyerthen tries to interject
respectfully.
The judge continues this is theUS District Court.
Whenever you submitdeclarations, those people
should be submitted tocross-examination, just like the
plaintiff's side should be, andthen we get the truth or
(05:07):
whatever your story is actuallytrue.
I tend to doubt it now.
I tend to doubt that you aretelling me the truth whenever we
hear all the evidence.
Eventually, why can't you bringyour people in to be
cross-examined or deposed at atime of their convenience?
I said two hours for Mr Ezell.
Mr Ezell is the acting head ofthe OPM.
(05:30):
I said two hours for Mr Ezell,a deposition at his convenience,
and you withdrew hisdeclaration rather than to do
that.
Come on, that is a sham.
The judge says quote go ahead,I'm in, I'm in it and I'm.
It upsets me.
I want you to know that I havebeen practicing or serving in
(05:53):
the court for over 50 years andI know how we get to the truth.
And you're not helping me getto the truth, you're giving me
press releases, sham documents,all right.
He says quote I'm actuallygetting mad at you and I
shouldn't.
The judge didn't decide it inthis hearing today that he
wasn't going to wait to give aruling.
(06:15):
He decided you know what I'veactually heard enough.
He decided he's going to rulefrom the bench today.
No-transcript theirprobationary or trial period.
(06:52):
Then the lead termination of alot of people.
The judge says but one inparticular.
I will give you an exampleLeandra Bailey, who is a
physical science informationspecialist in Alaric.
In September of last year shereceived a performance review in
which she was quote fullysuccessful in every single
(07:14):
category, not just some, butevery single category.
On February 13th she wasterminated using the OPM
template letter because, inaddition to directing these
terminations, opm gave aproposed letter and the letter
said I am reading from it inmemorandum from Leandra Bailey,
february 13th, from the directorof human services management at
(07:35):
the U S four service.
This is just one sentence.
The agency finds, based on yourperformance, that you have not
demonstrated that you uh, thatyour further employment at the
agency would be in the publicinterest.
Close quote.
And then the judge says despitethe fact that her most recent
review was fully successful inevery category.
(07:57):
The judge goes on to say now,how could it be?
You might ask that the agencycould find that based on her.
You might ask that the agencycould find that based on her
performance, when herperformance had been stellar.
The reason the OPM wanted toput this based on performance
was, at least in part, in myjudgment, as a gimmick, because
the law always allows you tofire someone based on
(08:19):
performance.
The judge then goes on to saynow, what I'm about to say is
not the legal basis for what I'mgoing to order today, but I
just want to say it.
He goes on to say it is a sadday when our government would
fire some good employees and sayit was based on performance,
when they know good and wellthat that's a lie.
(08:41):
Excellent in all, fully what aphrase.
I don't want to misstate it.
Quote fully successful in everycategory.
Yet they terminate her based onperformance.
That should not have been donein our country.
It was a sham in order to avoidstation statutory requirements.
(09:04):
In order to avoid statutoryrequirements, it also happens to
be whenever you fire somebodybased on performance, then they
can't get unemployment insurance, can they?
So that makes it even worse,doesn't it?
And then it makes it even worsebecause the next employer is
going to say have you ever beenterminated based on performance?
And if they're honest, they'regoing to have to say yes to
(09:24):
thousands of people.
It is an illustration ofmanipulation that was going on
by the OPM to try to orchestratethis government while
termination of a probationaryemployee.
The court finds that the OPM diddirect all agencies to
terminate the probationaryemployees.
The court rejects thegovernment's attempt to use
(09:44):
these press releases and to readbetween the lines to say the
agencies had made their owndecisions with no direction from
the OPM.
The relief that's going to begranted is therefore as follows
First, the temporary restrainingorder will be extended.
The VA shall immediately offerreinstatement to any and all
(10:05):
probationary employeesterminated on or about February
13th or 14th.
This order finds that all suchterminations were directed by
defendant, the OPM, and wereunlawful because the OPM had no
authority to do so.
Further, the VA shall cease anyand all use of the template
(10:25):
termination notice provided bythe OPM and shall immediately
advise all probationaryemployees terminated February
13th and 14th that that noticeand termination has been found
to be unlawful by the DistrictCourt of Northern District of
California.
The VA shall cease anytermination of probationary
(10:46):
employees and the direction ofthe OPM.
To repeat, the order holds thatthe OPM has no authority
whatsoever to direct the orderor require in any way that any
agency fire any employee.
Now, given the arguments andthe facts in this case, namely,
the defendants have attempted torecast these directions as mere
guidance my order today furthersays further prohibit
(11:09):
defendants from giving anyguidance as to whether any
employee anywhere should beterminated.
Any termination of agencyemployees must be made by the
agencies themselves and, made atall, that they must be made in
the conformity with the CivilService Reform Act and the
(11:35):
Reduction Act and the Force Actand many other constitutional.
Or.
The judge goes on to sayprobationary employees
terminated on or about February13th and 14th, with an
explanation as to each of whathas done to comply with this
order.
Then the judge goes on to saynow this order.
So far I have only mentionedthe VA, the Veterans
Administration, but the samerelief I have decided is to be
(11:58):
extended and I'm not going torepeat it.
But I am extending the samerelief to the Department of
Agriculture, to the Departmentof same relief to the Department
of Agriculture, to theDepartment of Defense, to the
Department of Energy, to theDepartment of the Interior, to
the Department of the Treasury,and so is the VA, plus all of
those other agencies.
He says this is withoutprejudice to extending the
(12:20):
relief later and further toother agencies.
The judge then closes with this.
I will try to get out a shortand random opinion that
elaborates on this order, butthis order, as it counts, shall
go into effect immediately.
Please do not go back to youroffice and say, oh, we are
waiting for a written order,this is an order from the bench.
(12:45):
And then the judge closes with aadmonition to the Trump
administration, quote if youwant to appeal to the court of
appeals, god bless you.
I want you to because I'm tiredof seeing you.
I'm tired of seeing youstonewall on trying to get at
(13:07):
the truth.
And with that, that is howthousands of people who work in
the government, who the currentadministration and its top
campaign donor tried to fire.
That is how thousands ofAmericans got their jobs back
yesterday at the VA, at USDA, atthe Defense Department, at the
(13:30):
Department of Energy and theDepartment of the Interior,
which includes the National ParkServices, and at the Treasury
Department, which of courseincludes the IRS.
Court rulings also mean that theOffice of Personnel Management,
which they have been using aslike a central office for all
this stuff that DOGE has beendoing, the Office of at personal
management at the white housecan no longer tell anyone
(13:54):
anything about anybody whoshould be fired for any reason
from any part of the usgovernment.
This is the order you know ifthey're getting um reamed out by
a judge like that and losing soresoundingly in court that they
didn't just reverse thedecision, it was thousands of
(14:17):
people.
Thousands of people got theirjob back.
It was not only that.
The judge told his agency don'tyou even try to do anything
like that ever again.
And, by the way you've beentelling this court appears not
to be true.
The next time it's going to bebig trouble because you'll be
under oath before the court.
(14:40):
Something like this happens.
The person that is the spokesmanfor the agency that has just
been slicing dice in court wouldput out some response, but that
was not the case for thespokesperson at the OPM
(15:04):
yesterday the OPM, I should say,and that is because she was
actually somewhat busy, becauseon yesterday, cnn reported that
inside of her office at the OPM,the OPM spokesperson was very
busy posting dozens of fashioninfluencer videos inside of her
(15:25):
government office in which sheblows kisses and twirls and
shows off all her differentlooks, and then she posts links
to where you can buy the amazingfashion that she's been wearing
to her job in the office whereshe works as a spokesperson for
the OPM.
Now, this is the spokespersonat an agency that has been
(15:46):
firing thousands of park rangersand scientists and nuclear
security experts, becauseobviously those people don't
deserve their jobs, unlikehashtag her and the Trump folks
at the OPM right who definitelyknow what they're doing and who
definitely deserve their jobsbecause they're doing such a
(16:07):
good job at them, and whodefinitely deserve their jobs
because they're doing such agood job at them.
The story about the OPMspokesperson that broke
yesterday apparently she stillhas her job because, well, why
wouldn't she?
Meanwhile, the administrationis doing its management of the
(16:30):
federal government.
Just in today's news and thisis coming out of the Washington
Post quote last week, amid thescramble inside federal agencies
to meet Trump's return tooffice mandate, one CDC employee
received links to a newgovernment-wide initiative
promising to connect those whoneed workspaces with those who
have extra seats.
(16:51):
When the CDC employee enteredher home address to find nearby
office spaces, she was surprisedto receive a suggestion from a
closed Subway sandwich shop anda self-storage facility.
Another member of her CDC teamwas directed to a post office.
So they work at the CDC.
They were told to report towork.
(17:13):
The Trump administration toldthem to report for work at a
post office or a closed subwaysandwich shop or in a mini
storage.
Now these are CDC employees.
So you work for a federalscientific agency and you're
asked by the administration tofill out a similar space request
(17:34):
form as part of the newadministration's rollout of such
services, including one they'recalling Space Match, aimed at
connecting federal employeeswith offices where they could
work.
But then, when you enter, thefederal scientific agency worker
entered the information.
The two closest offices to whichwas recommended did not seem to
(17:55):
be a place for federal officesat all.
Quote one appeared to be abuilding in an industrial zone
that appeared to her supportgroups for people dealing with
alcohol and debt problems.
The other appeared to be aprivate home in a four-unit
building.
So this is a person who has ajob for the Federal Scientific
(18:18):
Agency.
They have been told by thecurrent administration that they
have a new high-tech tool, afancy new website that is
assigned to a person a new placeto work.
And the new place to work thatthis person has is a choice they
can either be a rehab or thehouse of someone who this person
(18:39):
doesn't know.
Space match I bet it has an xon it somewhere as well.
Space Space Match just becausethey wanted to, I guess, be so
efficient.
Now, of course, people weregoing to inevitably say that
(18:59):
this was just you know, onecourt, one court that is trying
to overrule the mandate of theexecutive branch.
And, of course, when you lookat the press release, it didn't
come out from the OPM, it cameout from the press secretary,
(19:24):
who, of course, just said well,you know, one judge is trying to
undo the power of the executive.
But then it got a little moreinteresting, because the federal
judge in California that issuedthe blistering ruling from the
bench in which he ordered theTrump administration to rehire
(19:47):
the thousands of people they hadfired from the federal
government and the USDA, theDefense Department, the Energy
Department, the Department ofInterior, the Treasury
Department and the VA got aninteresting update, because that
case the California federalcase the plaintiffs are the
union-representing governmentworkers.
(20:08):
The plaintiffs ended up goingback to the same judge in
California and essentially saidthank you for the ruling.
Your honor, can you please makethis so it applies to even more
agencies?
So now they have formally askedthe judge to expand that order
today and also to reinstatefederal employees at the
(20:32):
Commerce Department, theEducation Department, health and
Human Services, homelandSecurity, housing and Urban
Development, the JusticeDepartment, the Department of
Transportation, theEnvironmental Protections Agency
, nasa and the National ScienceFoundation and the Small
Business Administration.
(20:52):
And what happened after that?
After those plaintiffs askedCalifornia's federal judge to
expand his ruling and order evenmore agencies to rehire even
more people, a second federaljudge across the country, in
Maryland, issued a ruling in anentirely separate case ordering
the federal government to alsorehire thousands of fired
(21:14):
federal employees.
Rehire thousands of firedfederal employees.
The federal judge in Marylandsaid that they ordered the
thousands of fired probationaryemployees must now be restated
at the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Defense, theDepartment of Education, the
Department of Energy, theDepartment of Health and Human
Services, the Department ofHomeland Security, housing and
(21:36):
Urban Development, theDepartment of the Interior, the
Department of Health and HumanServices, the Department of
Homeland Security, housing andUrban Development, the
Department of the Interior, theDepartment of Labor, the
Department of Transportation,the Treasury Department, the VA,
the USAID, the ConsumerFinancial Protection Bureau, the
EPA, the FDIC, the GeneralService Administration, the
Office of Personnel Management,the Small Business
Administration and the NationalArchives and Records
Administration.
The Small BusinessAdministration and the National
(21:56):
Archives and RecordsAdministration all of them
reinstate all of your firedemployees who are in
probationary periods.
And this seems like there's anoverlap there.
That's because it was the listin those two cases were as
overlapped on purpose and thatis because into the news, when
(22:17):
you have the overlapping federalrulings ordering the immediate
reinstatement of thousands ofemployees and multifederal
agencies and in maryland thejudge wrote it like this the new
order that's just out, quotethe law is clear that when
dismissing an employee due tounsatisfactory performances, the
(22:41):
employer must honestly bedissatisfied with the
probationer's conduct orperformance, after giving him or
her a fair trial under federallaw on the job.
So again, two federal judgeswith the same equal sweeping
rulings, both in the samedirection, both telling the
(23:03):
Trump administration when youfired these people, you had no
right to do so.
Give them back their jobsimmediately.
I said this fight was going tocome between the courts and the
executive, that this was the bigfight, and it seems like we're
(23:25):
about 56 days in.
The fight is already here.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Doctor he's flatlining.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
We need to get him into surgery.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Sorry, you can't do that.
What are you talking about?
Who are you?
I'm your Republican congressman.
Now that we're in charge, wedefunded Medicare and we're not
paying for this surgery.
This man is dying Now get outof the hospital.
I won the last election.
I'm not going anywhere, butdon't worry.
(23:55):
We made sure Medicare stillcovers Viagra and I need a
refill.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Now Congressman John Lawson from Connecticut is not
pleased with what's been goingon, not pleased with Elon Musk,
not pleased with Doge, and hegave a barn burner of a speech
and it was a clip that kind ofwent viral, where he's talking
(24:24):
about Social Security and resortto saying you will do whatever
Elon Musk and Donald Trump tellyou to do.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Where's the independence of the committee?
He's talking to the chairman.
Where's the legislature?
We're an equal branch ofgovernment and you start off
with a blather and yet look atthe empty seats here.
Where's Elon Musk?
I'm sure he's a genius and is avery credible person because of
(25:01):
the wealth he's accumulated,but that does not put him above
the law or the responsibility tocome before this committee, in
this Congress.
If he's so great, if theseplans and all the fraud and
abuse that he found are soeminent, why isn't he here
explaining it?
You know why?
(25:22):
Because he's out to privatizeSocial Security.
He's been on television thelast couple of days talking
exactly about Social Security,medicare and Medicaid and what
he intends to do Privatize it.
The American people some of themmay have been born at night,
(25:45):
but not last night People areaware of this, every single one
of your districts, all the moneythat comes in monthly and you
have not done you as a Congresshave not done anything in more
than 54 years, and now you havesomeone coming in to privatize a
system, something you havelonged to do, going back to 1982
(26:10):
, because Elon Musk thinks thatthis is the best thing to do.
President Trump has calledSocial Security a scam.
Elon Musk has determined, as MrNeal said, called it a Ponzi
scheme.
Ask that of the people in yourdistrict.
Ask that, mr Smith, of the morethan 198,000 people in your
(26:37):
district who rely on SocialSecurity.
And you won't even let theperson who's planning to
privatize it, who's telling thebig lie in front of everyone, as
bold as he possibly can, sayingthis is what we're going to do.
The Congress is in our backpocket.
We don't even have to comebefore them and testify, because
(27:00):
we control the House, wecontrol the Senate and we
control the presidency.
And it's the tyranny of theexecutive.
It's why these revolutions werefirst adopted back in 1789,
because the founding fathersknew that the executive branch
does not have total authorityover the legislature.
(27:23):
Unless you have a willing partythat says no, we're going to do
exactly what you tell us to do,mr musk and mr president.
It doesn't matter to ourconstituents, it doesn't matter
how much money they are notgoing to receive, we're not even
going to tell them the truthabout what's going to happen to
(27:45):
them shut down and theirpersonnel, as Mr Neal said Dan,
after you cut and eliminate, thepeople say the agency isn't
responding accordingly.
No other agency operates forunder less than 1%.
(28:07):
With that they administer toover 70 million people in the
nation's number one anti-povertyprogram for the elderly and
children.
Shame.
Speaker 1 (28:21):
Yeah, 10,000.
That's the number I need youguys to look up 10,000 baby
boomers so far.
Retire a day, 10,000 a day, andgo on to Social Security.
It's not a damn pausing scheme.
(28:42):
These people have worked theirentire lives, they have paid
into it, the money has beentaken out of their checks and
they earn the money.
It's theirs.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
See you on the next episode.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com