Mass federal layoffs the Trump administration has planned can move forward immediately, after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted an injunction that has held them off since mid-May. More than 100,000 federal workers can now be fired at any time.
Court documents show that when the initial pause was ordered, plans to fire staff of at least 17 agencies and departments were already underway, with expected impacts to the nation’s science, veteran health, small businesses, universities and much more. The administration could still face legal challenges, once the firings are carried out, if they are determined to be an illegal use of executive power.
Imminent cuts reportedly include up to 80% of staff at the U.S. Geological Survey’s biological research arm, known as the Ecosystems Mission Area, whose science is the bedrock of American conservation. Even without additional budget cuts currently pending before Congress, the layoffs could virtually eliminate all biological research at that agency.
“The Trump administration is pushing fast forward on the extinction crisis,” Noah Greenwald, the Center for Biological Diversity’s endangered species director, said about the plans in May. “If we get rid of the science that shows (environmental) problems, we won’t have to think about it, but that won’t make them go away.”

RIFs coming soon

Catastrophic “reduction in force” (RIF) layoffs there and elsewhere are expected to move forward quickly. The Department of Interior, which houses USGS, had prepared to send out RIF notices as early as May 15, according to reporting by Government Executive. Now, they can do so.
One nonprofit conservation biologist, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution, in May called the then-imminent USGS layoffs “shortsighted and ignorant.”
Cuts could, for example, shutter the Bird Banding Lab, without which all handling and marking of live wild birds in the U.S. would quickly halt. Data from these activities not only informs the majority of avian science and conservation, it’s used to create population estimates that form the basis of waterfowl hunting regulations.
It would likely also mean the end of the USGS Bee Lab, which is a linchpin for native pollinator protections. That lab, with its tiny staff of two, is the only entity with the expertise to identify the nation’s more than 4,000 native bee species. Such species are essential for ecosystem health and boost American agriculture to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.
Numerous other large-scale layoffs are expected to move quickly. In addition to cuts at USGS, leaks to Government Executive revealed that the Interior Department has prepared to fire 1,500 people from the National Park Service, with more layoffs in the works at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other branches. When the initial pause was ordered May 9, the issuing court noted that the Department of Health and Human Services was poised to fire up to 10,000 people. Veterans Affairs planned to fire 83,000. NOAA, the IRS, AmeriCorps and the National Science Foundation, among others, were prepared to eliminate 40-70% of their staff. The State Department later announced their own plans for cuts.
“If we get rid of the science that shows (environmental) problems, we won’t have to think about it, but that won’t make them go away.”

Getting rid of science

Such a reorganization, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted when it upheld the injunction, “facilitates the proliferation of food-borne disease, contributes to hazardous environmental conditions, hinders efforts to prevent and monitor infectious disease, eviscerates disaster loan services for local businesses, and drastically reduces the provision of healthcare and other services to our nation’s veterans.”
The high court’s ruling on the emergency appeal was somewhat unexpected: They are currently in recess until October and were not required to take up the case.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling noted that the decision does not prevent legal challenges to any eventual layoffs, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, who authored the only dissent, said the damage will likely already be done.
“It is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball.”

Sarah Trent is a freelance journalist who covers people and ecosystems affected by climate change and environmental degradation, especially in California and the Pacific Northwest. She lives in Vancouver, Washington.