U.S. Diplomats Take Trump to Court Over Mass Firings
The U.S. Foreign Service officers union seeks an injunction to prevent nearly 250 terminations.
December 12, 2025
The union representing U.S. Foreign Service officers is taking the Trump administration to court next week over the White House’s efforts to force through mass layoffs despite a recent spending law that appeared to offer hundreds of diplomats a reprieve to stay in their jobs into the new year.
At the beginning of the month, the U.S. State Department notified nearly 250 U.S.-based diplomats that mass layoffs—first announced in July—would go into effect on Dec. 5. The layoffs were delayed because of a mandatory 120-day administrative leave period, which ended in November amid the federal government shutdown, during which many nonessential government activities were paused for lack of funding.
The funding resolution that Congress passed to end the shutdown included a provision that banned the implementation of any large-scale firings, known as a reduction in force (RIF), through Jan. 30, 2026.
So when the administration tried to force the layoffs through, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the union that represents U.S. diplomats, and the American Federation of Government Employees, a civilian federal employees union, sued in U.S. district court to block the action, quickly obtaining a temporary restraining order.
“It is unfortunate that unions needed to sue in the first place to stop the State Department’s actions when the continuing resolution is clear that no funds can be used to implement or carry out Reductions In Force through Jan. 30,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was involved in drafting the continuing funding language banning RIFs.
“The administration should just follow the law instead of systematically dismantling our diplomatic institutions and weakening the workforce we depend on to advance U.S. interests, respond to crises and out-compete adversaries like the People’s Republic of China.”
A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for Dec. 17, at which time the government is expected to present its case.
“The Trump administration will continue to abide by all laws, regulations, and court orders,” a State Department spokesperson said in an emailed response to a question about the union lawsuit.
If a judge grants the unions’ request for a preliminary injunction to the layoffs, it would offer only a six-week reprieve at best. But that is still meaningful to the 246 people impacted, said Rohit Nepal, AFSA’s State Department vice president, who noted that the holidays are around the corner.
Furthermore, there is a likelihood that some of the impacted diplomats will become eligible for retirement between now and Jan. 30, which could be significant in terms of their ability to retire with full pensions, he said.
“I certainly hope that the judge reads the CR [continuing resolution] the way we read it and the way that a lot of the members of Congress that have helped read it,” Nepal said. “In an ideal world, the department would just simply [follow] what is pretty clear language in our minds, but obviously they didn’t.”
The looming mass layoffs come as AFSA earlier this month released its annual survey of its active-duty members, which found a whopping 98 percent reporting low morale.
Of the more than 2,100 active-duty diplomats surveyed, 61 percent said their workload has increased due to staffing shortages, and 65 percent said the Trump administration’s politicization of their traditionally nonpartisan workplace was their top concern.
Eighty-six percent said changes introduced by the administration have harmed their ability to advance U.S. diplomatic goals. Changes this year have included the firing of more than 1,100 department civil servants, the unilateral shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the dramatic shrinking of the U.S. foreign aid budget, and the sidelining of career diplomats in favor of special appointees to hold ambassadorships and high-stakes special envoy positions.
Just 1 percent of survey respondents said the administration’s changes had improved their ability to conduct foreign policy.