President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., displayed frankness on Monday in response to arguments presented by President Donald Trump‘s Justice Department regarding a reported firing spree at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Criticizing the lawyers for failing to provide direct answers and presenting irrelevant arguments, the judge called out the DOJ for suggesting that protests were the reason behind Trump’s decision to close down the CFPB’s main building and relocate employees.
During a three-hour preliminary injunction hearing, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson emphasized the importance of employees’ productivity over their physical work location. She expressed her disregard for arguments that downplayed the significance of the building closure and highlighted the benefits of remote work, labeling these statements as distractions from the case at hand.
Jackson asserted, “I want to know whether work is being done, not where. Singing the praises of working remotely is not the point.” She dismissed claims that protests outside the building hindered work progress as irrelevant, emphasizing the need for clarity on the actual work being carried out by the employees. As the hearing concluded, the judge called for an evidentiary hearing and additional testimonies to take place the following Monday.
A lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union in the District of Columbia accuses the Trump administration and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Voughtof of unlawfully firing CFPB employees without cause and scrubbing CFPB data from its records, including important CFPB contracts that are “necessary for cybersecurity,” according to Deepak Gupta, the union’s attorney.
More from Law&Crime: ‘Constitutional license to bully officials’: Trump firing Biden watchdog ‘unlawful,’ judge says — setting up SCOTUS battle as DOJ calls it ‘extraordinary intrusion’ of POTUS authority
“This unusual, unprecedented, wholesale termination of all of the agency’s contracts threatens all of the functions of the Bureau,” Gupta said Monday. “That, I think, is perhaps the most obvious irreparable part, and also just dismantling the agency. … If you got rid of everyone in the agency … brought it down to five people in a room, that’s irreparable. … Functions like supervision will take years to recover. The procurement process takes years to recover. So all of these functions are kind of wrapped up in one another. If you shut them down, it causes irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.”
Gupta said that if the court had not issued a consent order on Feb. 14 temporarily blocking the terminations and deletions, the CFPB would have been wiped out that very same day by the Trump administration.
“They were poised to take steps until we were able to work out a deal with the Justice Department to affect the cancellation of permanent information contracts that would inhibit — not just inhibit, completely impair — the bureau’s functioning,” Gupta said. “I think it’s pretty undeniable that those decisions, they necessarily lead to irreparable harm. They cannot be undone.”
Jackson, herself, said she was scared of the possibility that CFPB would be brought to its knees before she could issue her final judgment.
“What we’re talking about is interim oversight to make sure that it hasn’t been choked out of its very existence before I get to rule on the merits,” Jackson said, to which a DOJ lawyer replied: “I think we respectfully disagree.”
Jackson told the lawyer that she “appreciates the fact” that the government is telling her, “There’s nothing to worry about,” but she has doubts.
“How can that possibly be square with the directive to do no work at all?” Jackson asked. “Saying those words and then mouthing the words, ‘Unless required by law,’ really doesn’t matter unless the people who are supposed to do that work have actually been told to do it.”
Gupta and the union claim more than 70 employees have been fired in “indiscriminate fashion” by the Trump administration. The DOJ has tried framing the terminations as a “normal pause” and that staffers — as of Feb. 27 — have been told to return to work. The employees, however, insist that while emails are being sent out asking them to return, their higher-ups are not keeping their word on what’s being said in them.
“The main problem for the government is, the plaintiff’s position is they are saying the right thing in the ‘to-all’ employee email and then there’s a side phone call to the head of each section saying, ‘Yea but tell them to stand down. Tell them to wait for more guidance,”” Jackson explained. “We can’t have edicts issued with people’s fingers crossed behind their back. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have any legal binding relevance.”
Trump’s DOJ brought up emails and claims from his administration, saying it wanted to improve the CFPB through widespread changes that Trump promised to deliver to the American people during his 2024 campaign. But DOJ lawyers skated around requests from Jackson to explain how exactly.
“I want an answer to the question,” Jackson demanded. “Has the head of the Office of Consumer Response been told, ‘You may tell your employees to come to work or to work at home. They’re no longer on administrative leave. They are working. They are answering the hotline, they are being paid.’ Is that true or not true?”
A DOJ lawyer replied, “That is true. Yes, they were told.”
Jackson said, “OK? And how am I supposed to know that?”
The lawyer responded, “Our declarations that we will submit for the record.”
Jackson fired back, “Well, I don’t think they’re disputing that he sent a broad email saying, ‘We’re going to do what’s best and totally required.’ They’re talking about whether that’s actually being translated down to their level.”
Jackson ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held next Monday with testimony from Trump administration officials explaining whether employees are off administrative leave and whether work is being done.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
