A U.S. District Judge has ruled that the Trump administration broke federal law by ordering the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to cut its workforce in half. The judge found that the Department of Homeland Security unlawfully usurped FEMA’s authority, violating a post-Hurricane Katrina law designed to protect the agency’s operational independence. This decision, which does not yet include remedies, highlights concerns over FEMA’s critical disaster-response capabilities and raises questions about government communication practices, particularly regarding the deletion of relevant messages.
In a significant legal blow to the previous administration, a U.S. judge has determined that the Trump administration acted unlawfully by attempting to drastically reduce the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) workforce by half.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, presiding in San Francisco, issued a decision late Friday stating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) overstepped its bounds. The ruling asserts that DHS unlawfully usurped FEMA's independent authority over its personnel decisions, directing the agency to eliminate thousands of critical disaster-response positions.
A federal law, enacted in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, explicitly stipulates that the Department of Homeland Security "may not substantially or significantly reduce (FEMA's) authorities, responsibilities, or functions." Judge Illston concurred with unions that initiated the lawsuit, finding that DHS violated this statute last year when it moved to prevent FEMA from renewing temporary contracts for thousands of on-call reservists—personnel vital for immediate disaster deployment.
"There is no evidence in the record reflecting reasoned decision-making for this about-face or for the subsequent conditions DHS placed on FEMA's renewal authority," Judge Illston wrote in her decision.
The Friday ruling did not immediately outline remedies or impose penalties. Illston, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, indicated that such measures would be determined in a subsequent ruling next month. She also invited the involved parties to submit briefings detailing the scope of relief she should provide to the unions.
As of Saturday, neither FEMA nor DHS had responded to requests for comment regarding the judge's ruling.
Democracy Forward, a left-leaning advocacy group representing the plaintiffs, praised the court's decision. Skye Perryman, the group's president and CEO, remarked, "Congress created FEMA to operate with independence, given its mission to prepare and respond quickly when disasters arise."
The unions had amended a lawsuit filed last year that initially challenged broader mass layoffs initiated by the Trump administration. They argue that the proposed cuts to the emergency management agency are unlawful because they would severely undermine FEMA's core disaster-response mission, lacked Congressional approval, and were ordered by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem rather than originating from within FEMA itself.
The Trump administration, conversely, has maintained that FEMA possesses considerable flexibility in determining appropriate staffing levels. Former President Donald Trump had previously suggested that FEMA should be abolished entirely, advocating for states to assume full responsibility for their emergency preparedness. Last year, Trump established a council tasked with reviewing the agency's operations.
In June, Judge Illston initially declined to block the job cuts, noting that FEMA had, at least temporarily, withdrawn from its plans. However, she observed in her Friday ruling that FEMA appeared to be resuming the cuts. The agency projected staffing levels for the upcoming fiscal year at 11,383 employees—approximately half of its previous complement—without providing any justified basis for this specific number, according to Illston.
In a separate, related decision, the judge also criticized FEMA and DHS officials for utilizing the Signal messaging app on their personal cell phones to discuss staffing reductions and subsequently deleting these communications. Illston deemed these messages relevant to the lawsuit and stated that moving forward, she would presume "that the lost Signal messages would have been unfavorable to Defendants because they would have been further evidence" of unlawful conduct.
