Federal Unions Sue Hegseth Over 24-Hour Termination of Pentagon Bargaining Contracts

Two federal employee unions want a judge to force the Pentagon to reinstate labor contracts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tore up in April.

The American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland earlier this month. On Monday they asked for a preliminary injunction, according to Government Executive.

This lawsuit isn't attacking President Trump's authority to strip collective bargaining from national security workers. It's attacking how Hegseth did it.

The Executive Order Behind This

In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order invoking a rarely used provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, stripping roughly two-thirds of the federal workforce of collective bargaining rights on national security grounds, according to Government Executive. A follow-up order in August 2025 expanded the ban to more agencies.

Unions have been fighting both orders in more than half a dozen court cases since, per Government Executive's reporting.

Most agencies didn't move fast. Many took informal steps, like halting automatic union dues collection, but held off canceling actual contracts. The Office of Personnel Management itself kept shifting guidance, telling agencies in August 2025 they could "choose" to terminate CBAs, then reversing in February 2026 to say agencies "should" do it, according to Government Executive.

The Pentagon waited nearly a year after the original order before acting. On April 9, Hegseth issued a memo canceling virtually all of DOD's collective bargaining agreements, giving components just 24 hours' notice, according to NARFE.

What The Unions Are Actually Arguing

The complaint leans on the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to engage in "reasoned decision-making" before final action and to explain why they're breaking from past practice.

The unions say Hegseth didn't do that. "The Hegseth memorandum did not point to any facts showing that any of plaintiffs' CBAs, much less all of them, were inconsistent with national security," the unions wrote, according to Defense One. They note DOD had voluntarily entered these agreements and point out Hegseth never considered obvious alternatives: waiting for the underlying litigation to resolve, letting contracts expire on their own terms, or striking only the specific provisions that actually touched on national security.

The unions also point out that OPM issued a template in February specifically designed to help agencies satisfy the APA's requirements when terminating CBAs. That template instructed agencies to document that they'd "considered whether to terminate any CBA, in whole or part." Hegseth's memo, the unions say, skipped that step entirely and simply asserted the terminations were "required," according to both Defense One and Government Executive.

A Rollout the Unions Call Chaotic

Beyond the legal theory, the lawsuit paints a picture of a disorganized process. "DOD did not have any uniform process for implementing the termination of CBAs, and in many cases there were virtually no notification or communication at all about what actions were being taken, if any," the complaint states, according to Government Executive's separate report on the filing.

Some local union leaders learned by phone. Others got an email or letter. Some got nothing, according to NARFE. The suit alleges managers at facilities nationwide told employees their unions no longer existed, something the unions say was flat false and has caused ongoing confusion. DOD has also stopped accepting grievances under the terminated contracts, cutting off a formal channel employees had for resolving workplace disputes, per NARFE's reporting.

Where This Stands

Asked directly about the cancellations at an April 29 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Hegseth didn't hedge. He told lawmakers he fundamentally believes the department shouldn't be subject to collective bargaining at all, according to NARFE.

That's a legitimate policy position, and it's consistent with the administration's broader push under the March 2025 order: the argument is that national security agencies need management flexibility that union contracts can complicate, and that two-thirds of the federal workforce falling under bargaining protections is itself an anomaly worth correcting. Whether Hegseth's own implementation cleared the legal bar for how to get there is now what a federal judge in Maryland has to sort out.

Congress is also circling the issue. The House Armed Services Committee added an amendment to the fiscal year 2027 defense policy bill that would block DOD from spending money to implement the executive order, according to NARFE. A similar provision got stripped from the final FY 2026 bill during negotiations, so expect another fight when the House and Senate try to reconcile their FY 2027 versions.

No ruling has come down yet on the preliminary injunction request. Until one does, DOD's terminated contracts remain terminated, and the grievance process the unions say thousands of employees relied on stays shut.