In late March, President Trump signed the Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs executive order, aiming to limit the ability of many federal employees to join federal workplace unions. By some estimates, the order affects 1 million federal employees.
Some unionized federal employees (particularly those in national security agencies) already have limited collective bargaining power. This executive order now extends this logic to employees of any agency that might touch on national security from bargaining collectively. Targeted agencies include the departments of Health and Human Service, Justice, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among over a dozen others. Rather than a worry about national security, the Trump administration has said that unions are “hostile” to the larger policy agenda.
Here’s what you need to know about collective bargaining in the public sector, the power of public sector employees, and a larger anti-labor push within the government.
America’s public sector workers and unions
Currently, more of the public sector workforce is unionized than the private sector (around 32% to about 6%, as of 2024). While federal employees are a subset of the broader public sector workforce, the trend towards higher union membership applies to this group as well.
Historically, however, public sector workers were not unionized.
As union membership declined in the private sector in the 1980s (a longer and more varied story), public sector employees were unionizing. Federal employees gained the ability to collectively bargain through unions in 1962, through an executive order from President John F. Kennedy. If that executive order could create the right to collectively bargain, the Trump executive order could potentially take it away.
Federal employees are in a precarious place
Limiting collective bargaining for federal employees is a big deal, especially at a time when the Trump administration seeks large workforce reductions. Collective bargaining is an effective tool to increase both pay and benefits for workers. And collective bargaining also establishes that there is a collective of workers with the same interests. The alternative would be each worker negotiating one on one with managers, leaving employees vulnerable, as they would have incomplete information and a limited view of the employment process.
As it stands, public sector employees do not have all of the same protections as union members in the private sector. For example, public sector employees have no federal law that protects the right to strike. Instead, they must rely on state laws that can vary widely.
Within the political science literature on unions there is an ongoing debate about the degree and character of influence of public sector employee unions, which can boost workplace stability but also influence legislative power. A federal government employee, for instance, might work closely with members of Congress who fund their federal agency. All in all, public sector unions are in some ways a bit more “inside” the system than private sector unions. A work stoppage at a federal agency would strike at the government itself in some ways, even if public sector unions are disadvantaged in other ways.
Consistently, studies find that limitations on collective bargaining mean lower pay, and make it harder for unions to provide useful representation to members. Both impacts, in turn, can hinder unionization by limiting the amount of money flowing into the union from workers. Yet unions would still be required to provide representation to all workers in a unit, including any nonmembers who do not contribute financially to the union. In Janus v. AFSCME (2018), the Supreme Court found that no public sector employee could be forced to pay dues to cover legal costs, even as unions are mandated to provide to workers representation whether they were unionized or not. This decision made unions provide the same protections to all workers with no way to cover the full cost of that protection.
Who is exempt?
In the early 2010s, a new round of states adopted limitations to public sector collective bargaining. However, there were carve-outs for some preferred professions like police and fire within state law. Trump’s executive order mirrors conservative state law by also exempting federal police and fire workers. The fact sheet explaining the executive order mentions these unions explicitly. This decision, while not unique, shows a clear preference toward some groups over others. While Republicans may dislike unions, they do not want that dislike to be extended toward the police, in particular.
What does this EO mean for Trump and unions?
Plainly, this executive order is an attempt to restrict collective bargaining in federal agencies, and to hinder federal unions. Trump’s claims about supporting unions is simply rhetoric – these statements do not square with his actions.
Some in the labor movement are calling this order a retaliatory move after many unions advised federal workers not to comply with weekly reporting orders from DOGE. And number of federal unions have openly criticized the administration in recent months.
Unions are suing the White House to protest this order. But as is the case with forcing unions to provide representation to someone who has not paid dues, lawsuits cost both money and time. The federal government will always have more money and time than any union.
Meanwhile, many federal employees are losing their jobs – or seeing radical changes to the conditions of their employment. These changes are coming at the direction of Elon Musk and DOGE, who are not part of any traditional bureaucratic organization.
None of these actions are typical for the federal government. Without unions, it may be difficult for federal workers to assess what their legal rights are, whether their terminations are valid, and what they can and cannot do in the workplace. And, of course, uncertainty about workplace conditions or employee fears about their jobs will give the upper hand to management.
Laura C. Bucci is a 2024-2025 Good Authority fellow.
