News

🗞️ H.R. 2550: The Protect America's Workforce Act - Congressional Response to Federal Workplace Flexibility Reforms

Protect America's Workforce Act (H.R. 2550) seeks to nullify Executive order 14251 and restore federal workforce union intermediaries, collective bargaining requirements for approx. one million federal employees across more than 30 agencies

onthelaborfront

10 Dec 2025 — 6 min read

On March 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14251, titled "Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs," which fundamentally reshaped federal labor relations by removing collective bargaining requirements for agencies with national security missions. The White House justified this action by citing concerns that "hostile Federal unions obstruct agency management" and that collective bargaining processes impede the President's ability to implement policy reforms approved by Congress and voters.

The order invoked a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1)) that authorizes the President to exclude agencies with intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security functions from federal labor-management relations statutes. The administration argued that approximately 75% of federal employees working in national security-related capacities should have direct relationships with their employing agencies rather than filtered through union intermediaries. According to the Federalist Society's analysis, federal employee unions had "openly used their authority under the labor relations statute to resist the Trump administration's agenda and insulate executive branch employees from legitimate political objectives implemented by the President and Congress."

In response, Representatives Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced H.R. 2550 on April 1, 2025. The two-page bill would: (1) nullify Executive Order 14251 entirely, and (2) mandate that all collective bargaining agreements in effect as of March 26, 2025, remain valid through their expiration dates—regardless of whether those agreements cover positions the administration deemed inconsistent with national security requirements.

The affected agencies span critical government functions including the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Homeland Security subdivisions (USCIS and ICE, but notably excluding Border Patrol), NASA, NOAA, National Weather Service, and numerous other agencies. Interestingly, law enforcement personnel whose unions vocally supported President Trump—such as Border Patrol agents—were exempted from the order, raising questions about the consistency of the national security rationale.

The Arguments

Administration Position: The White House fact sheet emphasized that the order would enable agencies to "cultivate an efficient workforce that is adaptive to new technologies and innovation" without being "forced to seek relief through grievances, arbitrations, or administrative proceedings." The administration pointed to union resistance to bipartisan reforms—such as accountability measures at the Department of Veterans Affairs—as evidence that collective bargaining had become a tool for obstructing rather than facilitating effective government operations. Conservative scholars have long argued that public sector unions make government "less flexible, less responsive, and less innovative" while enabling unions to wield "extraordinary influence over government policies" through automatic access to policymakers and steady funding streams via payroll deductions.

Union Response: Federal employee unions challenged the order in multiple federal courts, arguing violations of the First Amendment (freedom of association), Fifth Amendment (due process), and separation of powers. They contended the order was political retaliation against unions that opposed administration policies. Judge Paul Friedman (D.C. District Court) issued a preliminary injunction on April 25, 2025, in the National Treasury Employees Union case, and Judge James Donato (N.D. California) issued a separate injunction on June 24, 2025, in the American Federation of Government Employees case. However, both injunctions were subsequently stayed—the D.C. Circuit on May 6, 2025, and the Ninth Circuit on July 7 and August 1, 2025—finding that the government was likely to prevail on appeal because "the evidence shows that Defendants would have taken the same action even in the absence of the [unions'] protected conduct."

The Direct Employer-Employee Relationship Question

A central issue in this debate concerns whether employees are better served by direct communication with management or through union representation. Research from the Hoover Institution suggests that public sector unions create "ossification" that "short-circuits the beneficial competition among jurisdictions" and prevents "government innovation." Conservative analysts argue that union contracts make it harder for agencies to respond nimbly to changing circumstances, create schedules efficiently, or implement performance-based accountability systems.

Proponents of the executive order note that federal employees already enjoy substantial civil service protections—including appeals rights through the Merit Systems Protection Board, whistleblower protections, anti-discrimination laws, and administrative grievance procedures—that private sector workers often lack. These protections exist independent of union representation. The question then becomes whether adding a mandatory union intermediary to the employer-employee relationship enhances or hinders effective workplace communication and problem-solving.

Critics counter that collective bargaining provides "a structured channel for communication and addressing employee concerns" that ultimately supports productive operations. They argue unions help resolve workplace conflicts early, preventing costly litigation while improving morale and retention. Representative Fitzpatrick, a Republican co-sponsor of H.R. 2550, stated that collective bargaining has "traditionally played a positive role" and called for a "more targeted and deliberate approach" rather than broad exclusions.

Political Dimensions and Taxpayer Costs

The political implications merit consideration. FedSmith analysis notes that in Fiscal Year 2019, federal employees spent approximately 2.6 million hours on union activities during work hours ("official time"), costing taxpayers an estimated $135 million. The same analysis observed that federal employee unions "overwhelmingly support Democrats"—with approximately 96% of AFGE's political contributions during the 2024 election cycle going to Democratic candidates and committees. This raises legitimate questions about whether taxpayer-funded workplace arrangements should facilitate partisan political activity, even indirectly.

Federal unions, however, argue these statistics lack context and that official time serves legitimate workplace functions like representing employees in disputes and negotiating workplace conditions—activities that benefit both employees and agencies by reducing litigation costs and improving working relationships.

Congressional Response

To force action on H.R. 2550, supporters launched a discharge petition campaign on July 17, 2025—a procedural mechanism allowing members to bypass committee leadership if 218 House members (a majority) sign. The campaign succeeded on November 18, 2025, when Representatives Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) provided the final signatures, forcing House leadership to schedule consideration.

On December 10, 2025, the House began consideration of H. Res. 432, the resolution providing for floor debate. The companion Senate bill has support from all Democratic senators and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, though prospects for passage remain uncertain in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Looking Forward: Better Workplace Relations Before Unionization

Regardless of one's position on this specific legislation, the controversy highlights a broader truth: many workplace conflicts that lead to unionization could be prevented through proactive management practices. When employees feel heard, respected, and fairly treated through direct communication channels, the perceived need for third-party representation often diminishes.

Effective agencies invest in:

Direct communication channels between supervisors and employees
Transparent policies on performance evaluation, promotion, and discipline
Regular feedback mechanisms that don't require union intermediaries
Competitive compensation and benefits that recognize employee contributions
Professional development opportunities that help employees advance
Responsive management that addresses concerns promptly and fairly

The ideal workplace—whether in government or private sector—features mutual respect, clear expectations, and open dialogue between employers and employees. When these elements exist, the question of union representation often becomes academic. When they're absent, employees understandably seek external advocates.

The H.R. 2550 debate ultimately centers on competing visions: Should federal agencies have maximum flexibility to adapt quickly to changing national security needs, or should employees maintain access to collective representation regardless of their agency's mission? Both sides claim to serve workers' interests—one through direct relationships and management flexibility, the other through formal representation and bargaining rights.

Key Points

Bill introduced: April 1, 2025, by Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.)
Current status: House began consideration on December 10, 2025, via discharge petition (H. Res. 432)
Bipartisan support: 104 House cosponsors; Senate companion bill backed by all Democrats and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Target: Nullifies Executive Order 14251 issued March 27, 2025
Workers affected: Approximately 1 million federal employees across more than 30 agencies and their subdivisions
Executive Order rationale: Administration cites union obstruction of agency management, need for workforce flexibility, and national security concerns
Agencies impacted: DOD, DOJ, VA, EPA, CDC, FDA, DHS components, NASA, NOAA, National Weather Service, and many others
Exemptions: Law enforcement officers (including CBP agents), some firefighters, and security guards retained bargaining rights
Legal challenges: Multiple lawsuits filed; preliminary injunctions issued April 25, 2025 (Judge Friedman, D.C.) and June 24, 2025 (Judge Donato, N.D. Cal.), but both stayed by appellate courts in May-August 2025
Appeals courts found: Government likely to succeed because evidence suggests action would have been taken regardless of union speech
Union political activity: Federal employee unions spent $135 million in official time in FY 2019; AFGE contributed 96% to Democratic candidates in 2024
Conservative perspective: Public sector unions make government "less flexible, less responsive, and less innovative" while wielding disproportionate political influence
Worker protections: Federal employees retain civil service protections, MSPB appeals rights, whistleblower protections, and anti-discrimination laws regardless of union status
Better approach: Proactive management addressing employee concerns directly can prevent workplace conflicts that lead to unionization