A federal judge on Monday extended a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's controversial "Fork in the Road" buyout offer to federal employees, which labor unions argue is unlawful and coercive. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole, who presided over the hearing in Boston, did not provide a timeline for a final ruling but stated that he has taken the matter under advisement.
The program, rolled out by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) two weeks ago, offered over two million federal employees a choice: voluntarily resign in exchange for continued salary and benefits through September or remain employed under an administration planning sweeping workforce reforms, including layoffs and office return mandates. The plan, which closely resembles an ultimatum given by Trump adviser Elon Musk to Twitter employees in 2022, has sparked legal challenges from unions representing hundreds of thousands of civil servants.
"We are pleased that today the court continued his injunction from last week, continuing to enjoin OPM and defendants from implementing the 'Fork in the Road' directive," said Elena Goldstein, an attorney representing labor unions in the lawsuit. "We hope that this decision today will provide civil service workers with the assurance that the American people have their backs."
The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of labor unions, argues that OPM has exceeded its authority in offering such a buyout, especially given that Congress has not approved funding beyond March 14. The unions claim that the plan violates the Antideficiency Act, which prevents government agencies from making financial commitments without congressional authorization. They also argue that the administration failed to consider the consequences of mass resignations on government functions.
So far, approximately 65,000 federal employees-about 3% of the workforce-have accepted the resignation offer, according to the Trump administration. However, unions have urged workers to reject the buyout, warning that there is no legal guarantee they will receive the promised payments. "This offer from OPM should not be taken seriously," said NFFE National President Randy Erwin. "The offer is not bound by existing law or policy, nor is it funded by Congress. There is nothing to hold OPM or the White House accountable to the terms of their agreement."
The Department of Justice has defended the program, calling it a "humane offramp" for employees who do not wish to navigate the uncertainty of Trump's workforce restructuring. DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton argued in court that congressional approval is not required since those who resign would remain in "duty status" with full pay and benefits until September. The government also contends that the resignation offer is voluntary and not a final agency action, making it immune from judicial review.
In a brief filed Sunday, Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., warned that the policy could cripple essential government services. "Without the work of thousands of federal employees, communities across the country will suffer," said New York Attorney General Letitia James. The attorneys general argued that the plan would have a "devastating impact" on veterans' services, disaster response, and other federal programs.
Despite mounting legal challenges, the Trump administration maintains that the restructuring of the federal workforce remains a "critical priority." The White House has yet to comment on the court's latest ruling, but the administration is expected to continue defending the plan as part of broader government efficiency reforms spearheaded by Musk and other advisers.
