Judge rules Trump administration order to fire FEMA staffers was illegal

Federal Judge Finds FEMA Staffing Cuts Violated the Law

Earthguardiansonline.com – A federal court ruling has dealt a significant setback to the Trump administration’s effort to sharply reduce the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s workforce. US District Judge Susan Illston ruled Friday that the Department of Homeland Security acted unlawfully when it curtailed FEMA’s ability to renew contracts for a large group of disaster-response employees.

The decision also criticized former FEMA and DHS officials over the deletion of Signal messages that may have contained evidence relevant to the case. The lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO, which challenged the administration’s actions affecting the agency’s on-call disaster workforce.

CORE teams make up a major share of FEMA staff

The dispute centers on FEMA’s Cadre of On-Call Response and Recovery workforce, generally known as CORE. These employees account for roughly 40% of the agency’s staff and can be among the first federal personnel deployed after hurricanes and other large-scale emergencies.

CORE workers perform a wide range of operational roles, including helping oversee the distribution of aid and managing longer-term funding for states and communities. Their appointments have traditionally run for two to four years, with renewals generally expected.

During the administration’s 2025 drive to shrink the federal government, DHS limited FEMA’s contract renewals to 180 days while officials considered a broader plan for the agency. In January, DHS directed FEMA to allow at least some appointments to expire, forcing employees to leave when their terms ended.

The staffing actions were part of a wider administration agenda to reshape FEMA, reduce its size and place more responsibility for disaster response and recovery on state governments. Since returning to office, President Donald Trump’s administration has maintained that FEMA is inefficient, politically biased and overly large.

That position has faced scrutiny because FEMA was already confronting substantial personnel challenges. A 2023 Government Accountability Office report found that the agency had a staffing gap of more than 6,000 employees.

Judge cites lack of a reasoned basis

Illston, who sits on the federal bench in Northern California, concluded that DHS had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by withdrawing FEMA’s authority to renew CORE contracts. The ruling is particularly important because federal law provides protections for FEMA’s operational capacity.

Although FEMA operates within DHS, Congress enacted a 2006 law stating that the homeland security secretary cannot substantially or significantly reduce the agency’s authorities, responsibilities or functions. Illston examined that protection alongside the administration’s January 2025 hiring freeze.

DHS itself was exempt from the freeze. However, the department later treated CORE contract renewals as though they were new hires. The judge found no adequately explained rationale for that change in approach or for the restrictions imposed on FEMA.

“There is no evidence in the record reflecting reasoned decision for this about-face or for the subsequent conditions DHS placed on FEMA’s renewal authority.”

The ruling does not erase the broader policy debate over FEMA’s future. It does, however, establish that a workforce reduction affecting a central part of FEMA’s disaster-response operation cannot be carried out without legal justification and consideration of the agency’s statutory responsibilities.

Signal message deletions draw separate rebuke

In a separate filing, Illston addressed Signal communications involving former acting FEMA administrator Karen Evans and former DHS deputy chief of staff Joseph Guy. Signal is a secure messaging service with privacy tools, including automatic message deletion.

The judge found that Evans created a Signal chat that appeared highly relevant to the litigation and set its messages to disappear after four weeks. After Evans became a defendant in the case in March, she shortened the automatic deletion period.

Evans made a backup of her Signal messages in April 2026. By that stage, Illston wrote, the messages most relevant to the earlier events had already been deleted. The court determined that Evans’ conduct was intentional.

“Evans should have known better,” Illston wrote. “She previously served as Chief Information Officer at DHS, in charge of the agency’s records preservation policies.”

As a consequence, the administration cannot rely in later proceedings on prior testimony denying plans to significantly reduce FEMA staffing or denying DHS involvement in the matter. Illston also said the court would presume that the missing Signal messages would have harmed the defendants’ position.

“The Court will presume that the lost Signal messages would have been unfavorable to Defendants because they would have been further evidence of Defendants’ plan, DHS’s control, and Defendants’ implementing actions.”

What the ruling means for disaster readiness

The case highlights the importance of staffing decisions at an agency responsible for coordinating federal help when disasters overwhelm local and state capacity. CORE personnel are not merely administrative employees; many have roles tied directly to deploying assistance, supporting recovery programs and coordinating federal resources after major events.

FEMA said it continues to have experienced leadership and support personnel at its headquarters and in regional offices. The agency framed its approach as an effort to preserve readiness while making the organization more focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners.

“We’re ensuring workforce stability and a strong, deployable force for upcoming national events and potential disasters; making the agency leaner, faster and laser-focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners before, during and after disasters,” a FEMA spokesperson said.

Illston’s decisions represent a victory for the unions challenging the staffing changes, but the court did not resolve the question of what remedy the government must provide. The parties were directed to work toward an agreement on that issue, leaving the practical consequences of the ruling to be determined in further proceedings.