Judge Puts Temporary Stop to Trump Administration’s Dismissal of CFPB Employees
The directive is issued amidst the Trump administration’s initiatives to reduce the federal workforce.
President Donald Trump’s executive order that facilitates the rapid dismissal of numerous career federal managers is currently paused in relation to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as a legal action contesting the policy is in progress.
Additionally, the order specifies that the administration is prohibited from reallocating any CFPB funds to other organizations “except to meet the normal operational responsibilities of the CFPB.”
The National Treasury Employees’ Union quickly initiated a lawsuit against Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought concerning the new policy, requesting the court to stop its enforcement, as they expressed concerns over potential further dismissals and layoffs at the CFPB.
Related Stories
He reiterated that worry in court, indicating he had received reports about additional dismissals and layoffs scheduled for that day.
“I don’t want to leave the courtroom without some assurance that these reductions in force won’t happen today,” Gupta stated.
Vought was appointed as acting director of the CFPB while Trump’s nominee for the position, Jonathan McKernan, await Senate confirmation. The CFPB was created in 2011 to protect consumers from abusive financial practices, originally proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
“As a result, the Escalated Case Management team is currently inactive, meaning there is no assistance for consumers facing urgent foreclosures or needing other time-sensitive complaint resolutions when companies don’t respond adequately,” Meyer, who resigned on February 7, noted.
She also indicated that the contractors are essential for maintaining the agency’s complaints database.
“I understand that that contract has also been terminated. Without regular upkeep of that system, it will become nonfunctional and crash,” she stated.
This puts all CFPB data at “imminent risk” of permanent deletion, Gupta argued in court.
“If that data is lost, it is irretrievable,” he stated, pleading with the judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to maintain the current situation.
However, Jackson remarked that Gupta’s TRO request had been submitted late the previous evening and resembled a plea for a preliminary injunction. She indicated that she would not make a decision on the motion without providing the government ample time to respond in writing.
Nevertheless, the judge acknowledged that “there are real, alleged, emergent concerns regarding data, employees, funds” and encouraged both parties to reach a consensual agreement on what actions could be temporarily suspended in the interim. She then exited the courtroom so that Gupta and Brad Rosenberg, special counsel for the Justice Department’s Federal Programs branch, could prepare a consent order.
“I appreciate the constructive collaboration you both demonstrated in drafting this together,” Jackson commented upon her return to the courtroom.
“People passionately adhere to their legal and factual positions. But that doesn’t preclude you from finding common ground to devise a plan that can be addressed thoughtfully.”
Jack Phillips and Mark Tapscott contributed to this report.
