Ninth Circuit Delivers Blow to Federal Unions, Upholds Trump Executive Order on National Security Exemptions

In a significant victory for the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline federal operations and prioritize national security, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated (see below) a lower court’s preliminary injunction against Executive Order 14251. The ruling, issued on Thursday, allows President Donald Trump to exclude certain federal agencies from collective bargaining requirements under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) when such agreements could impede national security missions. 

The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Daniel Bress and joined by Judges John Owens and Patrick Bumatay, rejected claims by six major federal employee unions—including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—that the executive order was a retaliatory strike against their public criticism of the administration. The court found no substantial evidence of First Amendment retaliation, noting that the order “discloses no retaliatory animus on its face” and is grounded in legitimate national security concerns affecting roughly 800,000 federal workers across more than 40 agencies and subdivisions, such as the Departments of War, Justice, State, and Homeland Security. 

“This decision is a great legal victory,” tweeted Graziella Pastor, Associate White House Counsel, on Thursday, sharing excerpts from the opinion. “It will allow President Trump to continue his efforts in making Americans safer.” Pastor’s post highlighted the order’s focus on exempting agencies from union rules that could “slow down critical work or risk security,” and underscores the administration’s push to reform what it views as obstructive federal labor collective bargaining practices.

Great legal victory today! The Ninth Circuit vacated an injunction on EO 14251, allowing President Trump to cancel collective bargaining agreements when they interfere with national security concerns. This decision covers roughly 800,000 federal employees and will allow President… pic.twitter.com/8cmUZlv6Sq

— Graziella Pastor (@GraziellaPastor) February 26, 2026

The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 27, 2025, invokes a longstanding provision in the FSLMRS allowing the president to exclude agencies involved in intelligence, counterintelligence, or national security work from union bargaining obligations.  The White House fact sheet accompanying the order emphasized that “hostile Federal unions” have obstructed management, declaring a “war” on the administration’s agenda. Critics, including the plaintiff unions, argued it was an unprecedented expansion targeting employees with minimal ties to security roles, but the Ninth Circuit panel dismissed these concerns, stating the unions failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their retaliation claims. 

This ruling builds on President Trump’s broader deregulatory agenda, which has resonated in California amid ongoing tensions between state leaders and the federal government. As the California Globe has previously reported, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted burdensome regulations and union mandates, including U.S. Labor Secretary Sean O’Brien’s recent cuts to 63 work-rule regulations, fulfilling campaign promises to reduce federal overreach.  Similarly, Trump’s push for in-person federal workweeks has mirrored—and arguably influenced—Governor Gavin Newsom’s reluctant order for California state workers to return to offices five years after COVID lockdowns, despite union pushback. 

The decision also echoes Trump’s environmental and infrastructure reforms, such as his executive order overriding California’s cap-and-trade policies to combat wildfires. More recently, amid a potential government shutdown, the Teamsters union backed Republicans, aligning with Trump’s “nuclear option” stance—a shift from traditional Democratic alliances that highlights growing union fractures under progressive policies. 

California is home to a large federal workforce now potentially affected by the order. Governor Gavin Newsom, who has maintained a one-sided rivalry with President Trump, has not issued a direct statement on the ruling but has previously allocated a $50 million “legal slush fund” to “Trump-proof” the state through lawsuits against federal policies. This fund has been used to challenge Trump-era executive actions, including those on elections and DEI programs. 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, joining a multi-state amicus brief in support of the unions during the appeal, argued that the executive order represented a “brazen attack” on federal employees’ rights to organize and speak freely. Bonta’s office emphasized circumstantial evidence of retaliation.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley responded to the ruling by vowing to continue the fight: “This case is not over. The merits of this case are still very much alive.”  Legal experts anticipate further litigation, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, as unions seek to restore bargaining rights.