Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Department of Justice Announces Affirmative Litigation Against the American Federation of Government Employees to Protect National Security
Justice.gov ^ | 4/2/2025 | DOJ

Posted on 04/02/2025 6:09:41 PM PDT by ransomnote

Last night, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas on behalf of eight agencies against affiliates of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Yesterday, the President issued an Executive Order entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs. This order reflected the President’s determination that several federal agencies and subdivisions perform investigative and national security work and that those agencies may not be required to collectively bargain consistent with our national security.

The plaintiff agencies have collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the defendants, which are locals, councils, and Division 10 of the American Federation of Government Employees; those CBAs prevent the plaintiffs from implementing workforce policies that would help them further their national security missions.  The plaintiff agencies therefore wish to terminate their CBAs.  But to avoid unnecessary labor strife and to ensure legal certainty, they filed this declaratory judgment action to confirm that they are legally entitled to do so.

“We are taking this fight directly to the public-sector unions,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “By affirmatively suing in Texas, we are aggressively protecting President Trump’s efforts to ensure unions no longer interfere in the national security functions of the government”

Underscoring this threat to national security, this lawsuit argues that “the President and his senior Executive Branch officials cannot afford to be obstructed by CBAs that micromanage oversight of the federal workforce and impede performance accountability.” This lawsuit also argues that the President “cannot effectively execute the laws or promote national security if his supervision of agents engaged in national security, intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative missions is stymied by intrusive bargaining agreements and continuous bargaining obligations.”

Updated March 31, 2025


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: afge; collectivebargaining; doj; lawsuit; nationalsecurity; texas; unions

1 posted on 04/02/2025 6:09:41 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

The American Federation of Government Employees.

Now that sounds like a fun bunch.

The kind of people who can liven up a party simply by leaving.


2 posted on 04/02/2025 6:14:14 PM PDT by frank ballenger (There's a battle outside and it's raging. It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frank ballenger

AFGE has very diverse political views—some Stalinists, some Maoists, some Trotskyites, some classic Marxists and some neo-Marxists—with 666 genders to match.

Lol.


3 posted on 04/02/2025 6:16:42 PM PDT by cgbg (It was not us. It was them--all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

Ha.

Pardon me for not noticing their diversity. I’m ashamed.


4 posted on 04/02/2025 6:22:14 PM PDT by frank ballenger (There's a battle outside and it's raging. It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Is this OUR team doing forum shopping? Good stuff!


5 posted on 04/02/2025 6:32:46 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

I never understood unions for federal employees. I remember when DoD employees were not allowed to be in AFGE. It hampered readiness and deployablility.


6 posted on 04/02/2025 6:44:39 PM PDT by wbarmy (Trying to do better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Doesn’t the infamous Pam Bondi run the DOJ.


7 posted on 04/02/2025 6:46:34 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

Came here to say that.


8 posted on 04/02/2025 6:55:46 PM PDT by TheConservator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Step One of running these scallywags completely out of the government. Buy!


9 posted on 04/02/2025 9:19:41 PM PDT by Gasshog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgbg

In the AFGE you will not find American patriots for this country, but they are saving democracy don’t ya know


10 posted on 04/03/2025 2:27:36 AM PDT by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

I’ve dealt with those idiot’s when I was trying to fire useless federal employees. You have to counsel, document, recounsel, document for months and then try to find other work for these idiots rather than just fire them. I did get rid of a couple but it was far easier to make their lives miserable so they’d quit rather than just fire them.


11 posted on 04/03/2025 4:39:26 AM PDT by maddog55 (The only thing systemic in America is the left's hatred of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

In order to understand, just follow the money.


12 posted on 04/03/2025 4:46:42 AM PDT by mewzilla (Swing away, Mr. President, swing away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Wonder if Janus v. AFSCME figures into this...


13 posted on 04/03/2025 4:47:48 AM PDT by mewzilla (Swing away, Mr. President, swing away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
that those agencies may not be required to collectively bargain

Wait what? So they are still allowed to collectively bargain, they just don't have to? I think what this poor excuse of an English-speaking author (a lawyer from DoJ..?) meant to say is:

that those agencies may be required not to collectively bargain
14 posted on 04/03/2025 5:38:53 AM PDT by Svartalfiar (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Public sector unions ultimately organize against We the People. Sounds unconstitutional to moi.


15 posted on 04/03/2025 9:00:55 AM PDT by ScottHammett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson