The Pentagon ordered Defense officials to begin terminating most union contracts within 24 hours, prompting a lawsuit from more than 20 local unions that say the move violates federal law.
Story Snapshot
- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered most Defense Department union contracts terminated within 24 hours under a “national security” executive order.
- More than 20 local unions from the American Federation of Government Employees and National Federation of Federal Employees are suing, saying the move breaks federal law.
- The unions argue Hegseth misread Executive Order 14251 and ignored years of stable labor relations, stripping tens of thousands of workers of long‑standing rights.
- Supporters argue the order strengthens national security and streamlines government operations, while critics say it expands executive power by limiting collective bargaining rights.
Hegseth’s 24‑Hour Order To End Defense Department Union Contracts
On April 9, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo directing leaders across the Defense Department to terminate almost all collective bargaining agreements within 24 hours. His order rests on Executive Order 14251, a Trump directive that removed bargaining rights from workers at more than 30 federal agencies with national security missions. The memo tells Defense officials to cancel contracts with only narrow exceptions, mainly where courts have already blocked parts of the executive order.
Government Executive obtained the memo, which says this sweeping action is “required to align agency operations with national security requirements.” The contracts at risk cover numerous bargaining units and tens of thousands of civilian workers who build, repair, and support military systems every day. Some unions, such as those that won earlier court injunctions, are shielded for now, but most American Federation of Government Employees locals remain exposed. Many of these workers have had union protection for decades.
Unions Sue, Claiming The Pentagon Broke The Law And Misused National Security
In response, more than 20 local unions from the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees filed a lawsuit in federal court in Maryland against the Defense Department and Hegseth. The complaint argues that Hegseth’s memo violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the law that forces agencies to use reasoned decision‑making and explain major policy shifts. The unions say the department honored its contracts for over a year after Executive Order 14251, then reversed course with no real explanation.
The lawsuit claims the memo misinterprets the executive order, treating it as a blanket command to wipe out bargaining rights instead of allowing case‑by‑case judgments. Union lawyers argue that the department could continue honoring contracts while still meeting national security needs, as it has done for years through wars and crises. They ask the court to declare the April 9 directive unlawful and to order all terminated contracts reinstated, restoring union status and protections for affected employees.
What This Means For Workers, Power In Washington, And The “Deep State” Debate
For civilian Defense workers, the immediate impact is simple and harsh: without collective bargaining agreements, they lose clear rules on schedules, promotions, discipline, and grievance rights. Many have long felt squeezed between rising living costs and stagnant pay; losing a union makes it even harder to challenge unfair treatment or unsafe working conditions. Both conservative and liberal workers may see this as another sign that the system protects insiders, not people who keep bases, shipyards, and depots running.
This fight also shows how leaders in both parties now reach for “national security” to bypass normal limits and centralize power. Executive Order 14251 uses a rarely invoked section of the Civil Service Reform Act to pull more than a million federal workers out of standard labor protections. The Office of Personnel Management later told agencies to terminate or change contracts to comply. Unions argue that these moves let political appointees and top managers act with “unbridled discretion,” a pattern judges have recently criticized in other Pentagon policies.
A Wider Pattern Of Federal Union Rollbacks And Public Distrust
The Defense Department lawsuit is part of a broader wave of legal battles over Executive Order 14251 and related actions. The American Federation of Government Employees is already challenging the order’s impact on Transportation Security Administration officers, claiming retaliation and violations of the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act. Other unions won preliminary injunctions that temporarily blocked the executive order in their agencies, which is why some bargaining units were spared by Hegseth’s memo.
The dispute reflects broader political arguments over the size and authority of the federal workforce. Conservatives often argue that entrenched bureaucracies wield too much influence, while labor groups and many Democrats contend that weakening unions reduces accountability and worker protections.
Sources:
military.com, afge.org, facebook.com, govexec.com, federalregister.gov, media.defense.gov, dcpas.osd.mil, opm.gov
