NSF terminates 170 probationary employees, experts amid mass federal firings
The National Science Foundation fired 170 probationary employees and experts Tuesday as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce, the agency confirmed.
In a written statement, NSF spokesman Mike England pointed to President Donald Trump’s executive order last week that included plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce as part of the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
“To ensure compliance with this E.O. the National Science Foundation has released 168 employees from Federal service effective today,” England said Tuesday. “We thank these employees for their service to NSF and their contributions to advance the agency mission.”
In an updated statement Wednesday, the number of employees terminated rose to 170. England said 86 of those staff members were probationary and 84 were classified as experts, correcting a previous statement that all of the workers had been probationary. Expert appointments last for one year or less and their work schedules are normally intermittent, he said.
NSF is an independent agency focused on science and engineering research and headquartered in Alexandria, Va. Much of that work is accomplished by making grants to U.S. colleges and universities, according to its website. Its workforce includes roughly 1,500 career employees, 450 contract employees, and 200 rotating scientists and engineers.
The news comes after reports of terminations across the federal government. While England didn’t provide a reason for the terminations, an NSF termination letter viewed by FedScoop indicates that the stated reason for some of the firings at the agency is the same “performance” rationale that other agencies — such as the Office of Personnel Management — have given employees.
But union leaders and workers decry those claims from agencies. Last week, Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the performance claims lacked evidence and called the terminations an abuse of the probationary period. He said the union — which represents federal workers — would fight those terminations.
Employees at NSF were notified of the terminations during a hybrid in-person and Zoom meeting at 10 a.m. Tuesday, two sources who were among those fired told FedScoop. They were granted anonymity to speak more freely about the situation.
The invitation for the meeting was titled “Meeting with NSF Probationary Employees and Experts” and was sent to 168 NSF email accounts at around 9 a.m., according to a copy of the invite viewed by FedScoop.
During that meeting, employees were informed of their terminations and told that NSF was making the decision at the instruction of the Office of Personnel Management, according to both sources. The sources described the call as tense, with many employees seeking answers from leaders.
The agency initially told employees to expect termination letters around 11 a.m. and their access to email would be cut off at 1 p.m., but that timeline was delayed. Some people started to get their termination letters around 2:30 p.m. and others around 3 p.m., the sources said.
A termination letter sent to one of those NSF employees included identical language from letters sent to employees at OPM about performance. The letter told the employee: “based on your performance … you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.”
And also similarly to OPM workers, the NSF source told FedScoop they had received high marks on performance reviews.
The other former NSF employee, who was an at-will expert, said at-will employees were not given cause for their termination because the agency doesn’t have to provide one.
The story was updated on Feb. 19 to add additional information from NSF sources and to correct a previous statement from NSF that all of the fired workers were probationary.
Chief AI officers must be preserved in the Trump administration
In the midst of a new presidential administration, discussions about the future of U.S. artificial intelligence policy remain at the forefront of everyone’s mind across industry, government and civil society.
On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump repealed the Biden administration’s AI executive order . Three days later, Trump signed his own EO on Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence. The order directs actions to advance “the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.” These actions include the immediate review of all actions in the Biden AI EO and the suspension, revision, or rescission of anything inconsistent with or that presents obstacles to achieving Trump’s policy.
One particularly practical and impactful measure from the Biden EO should not be overlooked and deserves safeguarding: the establishment of chief AI officers in federal agencies. This key initiative, designed to ensure cohesive leadership and direction in AI adoption and integration across the government, should remain integral to the nation’s AI strategy moving forward.
CAIO leaders have been valuable both in government and the private sector for driving modernization and operational excellence. The CAIO role provides an important structural piece of the puzzle that federal agencies need to incorporate AI into their operations effectively. Preserving CAIOs is a non-political, practical measure to ensure the government can confidently address both the complexities and advantages that arise from the widespread integration of AI.
There are two audiences from the incoming administration whose opinions will matter in relation to the future of CAIOs in the government. First, the new “AI czar” David Sacks and his team: Michael Kratsios, who is slated to return to direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy;) Sriram Krishnan, senior policy advisor for AI at OSTP; Lynne Parker, the incoming head of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; and Mike Waltz, assistant to the president for national security affairs.
This team of senior officials will have a significant role in shaping the administration’s approach to AI and driving measures to advance federal adoption of AI. Three of them — Sacks, Kratsios and Waltz — are specifically directed by the president’s EO to lead the development of an AI action plan.
The second relevant audience is the new Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. DOGE is engaged in measures to streamline federal operations, reduce waste, and align government processes for greater efficiency. Preservation of CAIOs within federal agencies, and appointment of experts in government and technology to fill these positions, should be central to the efforts of both the AI czar and the DOGE.
Building a leadership structure for modernization
The U.S. government has persistently faced challenges in modernization, often lagging the pace of the private sector due to systemic challenges including bureaucracy, fragmented agency structures, and outdated procurement processes that prioritize legacy systems.
Unlike the private sector, where competition drives rapid adoption of cutting-edge technologies, government agencies often face longer approval cycles and a lack of standardized approaches to implementing new technologies. These factors make it difficult to deploy new technologies such as AI, creating additional barriers that have left the federal government trailing the private sector when it comes to digital transformation, services improvements, and cost reduction.
One prime example of how the chief AI officer function can transform government is already in motion at the Department of Defense, where the chief digital and artificial intelligence officer acts as the department’s principal authority on data, analytics, and AI. Tasked with integrating these capabilities across the entire defense enterprise, the CDAO ensures unity of mission, tighter interagency coordination, and a strategic outlook for AI development and deployment.
This leadership has contributed to tangible advancements in AI adoption. Most recently, the CDAO launched the AI Rapid Capabilities Cell and “Frontier AI” pilots in partnership with the Defense Innovation Unit — an initiative designed to accelerate cutting-edge AI solutions for both warfighting and enterprise management.
By consolidating resources, testing AI in real operational environments, and collaborating closely with both the private sector and other facets of the defense ecosystem, the CDAO is working to streamline AI innovations. In doing so, the DOD demonstrates a case study as to how a chief AI officer’s mandate — spanning policy, technology, and workforce readiness — can be a game-changer for any federal agency aiming to modernize at scale. Notably, the CDAO was established prior to the directives laid out in Biden’s AI EO, but CAIOs at other agencies have gone on to resemble this position in the context of their own agency’s mission and structure.
The key to unlocking AI’s full potential in the public sphere lies in having dedicated leaders who understand both the technology and the unique complexities of government operations. CAIOs fulfill this role by driving the adoption of transformative AI solutions, ensuring their alignment with agency missions and public trust and establishing measurable frameworks to bolster efficiency.
These efforts directly support the DOGE goal to dismantle bureaucracy and reduce waste, and will support the AI czar’s work in transforming outdated practices into agile, future-oriented capabilities across government. However, the effectiveness of CAIOs depends on sustained commitment.
CAIOs in government are relatively new, having only just begun laying the groundwork for a cohesive, long-term approach to AI adoption. Removing these roles prematurely may disrupt ongoing initiatives, and stall momentum that is critical to modernizing federal services. By preserving the CAIO function in this administration, it ensures continuity and that the progress made is not lost, but rather expanded upon, setting the stage for further modernization.
Bridging public and private expertise for transformative solutions
To achieve private-sector-level efficiency in government, it is not enough to simply adopt AI technologies. The government must also prioritize engaging with key partners in the private sector to collaborate for the purpose of enabling federal agencies to deliver on their missions effectively, efficiently, and securely.
The tech industry strongly supports government modernization because an efficient, technologically advanced government benefits society as a whole, enabling better public services, stronger national security, and a competitive global economy. To achieve this goal, industry has already been advocating for procurement practices that are agile and flexible enough to accommodate these emerging technologies.
Successful partnership across sectors for adopting AI in government requires clear leadership and expertise, which is where CAIOs become indispensable. CAIOs can act as critical partners in translating the tech industry’s innovations into actionable, scalable solutions for federal agencies. They understand the complexities of government operations and provide the leadership needed to navigate regulatory frameworks, ensure ethical AI use, and integrate new technologies in ways that align with agency missions and public trust.
By collaborating with CAIOs, the tech industry can help the government fully realize the transformative potential of AI while ensuring accountability and efficiency.
Chief AI officers are a smart investment for years to come
Streamlining government services and adopting new technologies are laudable goals, but without the leadership of CAIOs, these efforts risk becoming fragmented and ineffective. Ensuring the federal government has the structures and expertise in place to lead is not just smart policy — it’s an investment in a more efficient, responsive, and modern government that benefits all Americans.
For an administration focused on streamlining government, cutting waste, and improving performance, CAIOs are not a vestige from a prior presidency — they are a forward-looking solution that should be preserved and empowered.
Bethany Abbate is the manager of artificial intelligence policy at the Software & Information Industry Association.
Treasury watchdog will audit DOGE access to payment systems
The Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General said it has opened an audit into the agency’s payments system after Department of Government Efficiency liaisons accessed the personal and financial information of Americans stored by the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
In letters to Democrats in the Senate and House, Loren Sciurba, Treasury’s deputy inspector general, said the OIG initiated the audit into Bureau of Fiscal Service systems before the lawmakers made the request last week.
The audit will examine applicable payment system controls that have been in place since Oct. 1, 2024, in addition to the two most recent fiscal years “as it relates to alleged fraudulent payments.”
Sciurba said the watchdog’s fieldwork is expected to begin immediately, but is unlikely to be finished until August “given the breadth of this effort.”
“However, we recognize the danger that improper access or inadequate controls can pose to the integrity of sensitive payment systems,” Sciurba wrote. “As such, if critical issues come to light before that time, we will issue interim updates and reports.”
Treasury OIG’s goals with the audit, which was first reported by the Associated Press, are to determine whether current controls for granting or restricting access to BFS payment systems are adequate and if controls to ensure payments are sufficiently following laws, regulations and federal guidance.
The watchdog said it would also “follow up on any allegations of improper or fraudulent payments made by Fiscal Service.”
Finally, Sciurba noted that Treasury OIG is coordinating with the Treasury Office of Inspector General for Tax Administration regarding IRS systems and the “highly sensitive information” contained in them.
The audit comes amid growing concerns about the security of Americans’ personal and financial information following reports that Elon Musk surrogates, operating as DOGE liaisons to Treasury, had accessed Bureau of Fiscal Service payment systems as part of their so-called efficiency work.
Information stored in those BFS systems includes names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, birth places, home addresses and telephone numbers, email addresses, and bank account information of Americans who have transacted with the federal government.
The Treasury Department and Secretary Scott Bessent were sued by union groups over the access granted to two DOGE “special government” employees. A federal judge partially blocked their access; a different federal judge went a step further, granting a temporary restraining order to cut off access and ordering those who had accessed BLS information since Jan. 20 to “immediately destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems.” The Department of Justice is seeking a reversal of that order.
A bill from more than 140 House Democrats, meanwhile, would bar the Treasury secretary from granting administrative control, use or access to any agency payment system or public money receipt, with exceptions given to eligible department officials, employees or contractors.
AFGE says it will fight mass federal firings, refuting ‘performance’ claims
American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said the federal worker union would fight mass firings of government employees Thursday, calling the Trump administration’s actions a politically driven abuse of the probationary period.
His statement comes after reports that probationary employees were going to be or already had been fired from agencies, including the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management. In his statement, Kelley refuted claims that employees were fired for poor performance, saying “there is no evidence these employees were anything but dedicated public servants.”
In response to a request for comment, a spokeswoman for OPM said “the probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment. Agencies are taking independent action in light of the recent hiring freeze and in support of the President’s broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government to better serve the American people at the highest possible standard.”
News of the mass firings of probationary employees was first reported by Federal News Network and later reported by others, including the Washington Post.
At OPM specifically, probationary workers were notified that their employment would be terminated during a Microsoft Teams call Thursday. That meeting began at roughly 2:30 p.m. Eastern and lasted less than five minutes, according to two sources who were on the call and a recording obtained by FedScoop. On the call, OPM acting Director Charles Ezell told employees that they would receive emails notifying them of their termination “shortly.” A copy of the invite for that meeting viewed by FedScoop showed that it was sent to over 90 people.
Ezell said that employees’ physical and IT access would be shut off by 3 p.m. Eastern and they would be asked to leave the building at that time — roughly 30 minutes after the start of the call, according to the recording and the sources.
Employees were then emailed a letter from Ezell that stated: “based on your performance … you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest,” according to copies of that letter viewed by FedScoop.
Both former probationary employees FedScoop spoke to, however, said they received high marks in their performance reviews.
One of those probationary employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, said that they took a pay cut to join the federal government and wanted to serve the American people. That former IT worker also said they voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 and that they now regretted their decision.
Prior to the 2:30 p.m. call, workers had been invited to an earlier Teams call that was silent for roughly 30 minutes. On that first call, the sources said someone shared that they were trying to reach out to the union and then employees’ microphone and chat functions were disabled. The second call where Ezell gave remarks was in the format of a webinar, the sources said.
The terminations weren’t limited to probationary employees. The career communications team at the agency was also dissolved Thursday, according to a former senior OPM official and a former employee on the communications team who was fired.
A copy of an email sent to one of those employees viewed by FedScoop was titled “RIF Notice and Administrative Leave Instructions.” Similar to the instructions to probationary workers, it also instructed people to pack up and leave.
The move comes after agencies, such as GSA, braced for terminations. FedScoop reported that GSA planned to cut the majority of its U.S. Digital Corps — a program for early career technologists who are stationed throughout the federal government to assist agencies with cybersecurity, design, product management, software, and data science and analytics.
Prior to the terminations, some employees took an option offered by the Trump administration for “deferred resignation.” That offer, which came from OPM last month and was titled “Fork in the Road,” gave employees an option to indicate they wanted to leave the government and have their resignation become effective Sept. 30. In the meantime, they would still receive pay and benefits and be exempted from in-person work requirements.
The original deadline to accept was Feb. 6, though it was paused while a lawsuit over its legality moved forward. That pause to the deadline ended Wednesday evening when a court found the unions that brought the case, including AFGE, lacked standing to bring the suit.
According to OPM, the final number of workers who accepted the offer was roughly 75,000.
In his statement about the terminations Thursday, Kelley said the firings are eliminating talent the government spent years acquiring.
“AFGE will fight these firings every step of the way. We will stand with every impacted employee, pursue every legal challenge available, and hold this administration accountable for its reckless actions,” Kelley said. “Federal employees are not disposable, and we will not allow the government to treat them as such.”
Remote-work military spouses at agencies spared from Trump’s return-to-office order
Spouses of active-duty U.S. military members employed by federal agencies with remote-work agreements will be exempt from the Trump administration’s return-to-work policy, the Office of Personnel Management said in a memo released Wednesday.
The guidance from OPM to create a remote-work carve-out for agency-employed spouses of U.S. Armed Forces members comes after weeks of uncertainty and outcry from military families in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s day-one executive order calling federal workers back to the office.
A bipartisan House bill introduced last week by Reps. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., and Rob Wittman, R-Va., called for a military spouse exception to Trump’s order, preserving existing federal government telework and remote-work agreements.
“Today, I am celebrating a win for military families after the Administration heeded our bipartisan call to exempt military spouses from the return to in-person work order,” Vindman said in a statement. “Our bipartisan Support Military Families Act directly led to this action that treats the spouses who sacrifice so much for our nation with dignity and respect and supports the readiness of our military.”
The OPM carve-out does not mention anything about telework, but an aide to Vindman told FedScoop that the plan is to move forward with the bill and secure more co-sponsors, with the goal of codifying the exemption for both remote work and telework.
The aide added that the legislation has generated “a lot” of support from Republicans and Democrats “because people know it is the common sense, correct thing to do.” The next step for the bill will be a House Oversight Committee hearing and markup, and then either a floor vote or consideration under reconciliation, the aide said.
In an interview last week with FedScoop, a military spouse and federal worker in Vindman’s district said that the daily 200-mile trek to her agency’s Washington, D.C., headquarters would not be doable for her family.
“We have a mortgage to pay. We have bills coming every month, and it’s dependent on two incomes,” she said. “So we should not have to be penalized because the government and the military said to my husband, ‘you have to move.’”
The OPM memo says that military spouses can continue in their current remote-work arrangements “regardless of whether they were appointed under the Military Spouse Employment Act authorities.” The guidance is also applicable to agency workers married to U.S. Foreign Service members on assignments abroad.
Wittman said in a statement that he was proud to help “spotlight this critical issue” after more than a week of “bipartisan advocacy.”
“These individuals make tremendous sacrifices in support of our active-duty service members, often facing frequent relocations that make maintaining an in-person job challenging,” he said. “Standing by our military families isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s patriotic and simply common sense. I thank the administration for their decision to amend this executive order.”
This story was updated with comments from a Vindman aide and to clarify that the OPM memo applies to remote work but not telework.
DOGE ‘touch-base’ sessions with GSA staff preceded probationary terminations, source says
The Department of Government Efficiency conducted a series of “touch-base” sessions at the General Services Administration’s Technology Transformation Services leading up to the agency’s move to cut staff, asking employees to share details about interagency projects that sometimes contained sensitive information and stirring privacy concerns among the workforce, according to documents shared with FedScoop.
A source familiar with the inner workings of the TTS-managed U.S. Digital Corps said that DOGE representatives asked them and others in the two-year fellowship for early-career technologists to show coding work, and that staff was hesitant to share code and sensitive information related to work with other agencies. USDC fellows work through interagency agreements across the federal government, including in agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of State, and the National Institutes of Health.
DOGE interviews with GSA staffers, including USDC fellows, preceded the agency’s move to begin terminating probationary employees, according to the source. USDC fellows had 15-minute interviews, or “touch-base sessions,” with DOGE representatives that the source believes informed some of those termination decisions.
During those meetings, which were led by DOGE advisers — who only identified themselves by their first names — or Thomas Shedd, the newly appointed director of TTS, staffers were asked about their skillsets and work, the source said. A GSA spokesperson told FedScoop that Shedd initiated these meetings, and that “getting a sense of the technical work being performed by the organization is an essential part of understanding what the team is doing and what they are capable of.”
The source said the DOGE representatives did not have government emails or Personal Identity Verification cards, and they were not interested in showing those advisers anything that could potentially be sensitive information.
In a Slack message from Shedd, he referred to the DOGE representatives as advisers and said they were in the process of getting credentials. Shedd, previously a software engineer at Tesla, the Elon Musk-owned electric vehicle maker, said the representatives were not sharing their last names to protect their privacy because of media scrutiny, according to the source.
The source then said that Shedd minimized communications with TTS staff from there. The GSA spokesperson disputed that characterization, saying that there were multiple “all hands” meetings in late January and early February to “answer staff’s questions and hear their concerns.”
A calendar invite to a DOGE touch-base session did not show a government email for the DOGE representatives, according to the source and substantiated by documents shared with FedScoop.
The source confirmed that 55 of 70 USDC employees were faced with termination, leaving only 15 to be retained. Employees on Slack reported that other parts of TTS had been notified of their dismissals in both individual and group calls.
This story was updated Feb. 13, 2025, with responses from a GSA spokesperson.
Unions lack standing to challenge ‘deferred resignation,’ judge rules, voiding deadline pause
Unions challenging the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” offer to government workers lack the standing to do so, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Wednesday.
The decision eliminated the temporary pause on the deadline for workers to accept the offer and denied the unions’ attempt to seek a longer-term hold on the deadline through a preliminary injunction.
As a result, the deadline to accept the offer closed Wednesday at 7 p.m., according to a statement from Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman McLaurine Pinover. She said the final number of people who accepted the offer is about 75,000.
Under OPM’s offer, which the agency dubbed “Fork in the Road,” federal employees could indicate they wanted to leave the government and have their resignation become effective Sept. 30. In the meantime, they would still receive pay and benefits and be exempted from in-person work requirements. The original deadline to accept was Feb. 6.
“OPM is pleased the court has rejected a desperate effort to strike down the Deferred Resignation Program,” Pinover said. She added: “There is no longer any doubt: the Deferred Resignation Program was both legal and a valuable option for federal employees.”
However, Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the unions that brought the lawsuit, called the ruling a “setback” but not the end of their fight. AFGE’s lawyers are assessing the union’s next steps, he said.
“Importantly, this decision did not address the underlying lawfulness of the program,” Kelley said. “We continue to maintain it is illegal to force American citizens who have dedicated their careers to public service to make a decision, in a few short days, without adequate information, about whether to uproot their families and leave their careers for what amounts to an unfunded IOU from Elon Musk.”
Judge George O’Toole of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially issued a temporary pause on the Feb. 6 deadline before it took effect as the litigation moved forward. On Feb. 10, he again extended the pause to the deadline — that time without a specific end date.
In his ruling Wednesday, O’Toole said that standing requires the plaintiffs to be more than bystanders and the unions are not directly impacted by the directive.
“Instead, they allege that the directive subjects them to upstream effects including a diversion of resources to answer members’ questions about the directive, a potential loss of membership, and possible reputational harm,” O’Toole said.
This story was updated Feb. 13, 2025, with the number of people who took the offer.
GSA looks to terminate probationary employees
The General Services Administration is moving to implement guidance from the executive branch that gives federal agencies the authority to terminate employees within probationary periods.
A source familiar with the inner workings of the GSA told FedScoop that the agency’s compliance with Office of Personnel Management guidance is something that every agency component is undertaking, which includes but is not limited to the technology offices within GSA. The memo states that employees on probationary periods “can be terminated” without triggering appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Another individual with direct knowledge of the matter, however, said that employees have been told to expect the terminations to include a vast majority of the U.S. Digital Corps and the Presidential Innovation Fellows, which are held administratively within the GSA. Additionally, they said that supervisors have been told that a large number of employees in probationary periods would receive separation notices Wednesday night.
A spokesperson with GSA told FedScoop that “from the beginning of this administration, GSA‘s leadership has been committed to supporting the administration’s initiatives to right size the federal workforce.”
They continued: “Like all agencies, GSA has been working to meet OPM memo requirements as it relates to probationary periods. GSA has been and remains committed to ensuring a respectful and dignified process for our agency personnel during this transformation.”
OPM’s memo asked agencies to provide a list that identified probationary employees who “have served less than a year in a competitive service appointment, or who have served less than two years in an excepted service appointment.” Employees who fit this description, as well as temporary employees on appointments that are not meant to exceed a certain date, can be terminated without triggering MSPB rights.
A career GSA manager who is aware of the agency’s processing of OPM’s memo told FedScoop that offices were given the opportunity to identify employees from the list that they recommend retaining.
The GSA spokesperson, meanwhile, said that “to be as respectful as possible,” the agency won’t release program names or the number of GSA employees who are potentially affected by these terminations.
Federal judge orders HHS, CDC, FDA to restore webpages, datasets
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to restore webpages and datasets that had been altered, partly granting a request by a medical professional nonprofit.
The order from Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia required those agencies to return the webpages and datasets — including webpages for youth health, HIV information and contraceptive guidance for health providers — to the versions that existed on Jan. 30 by no later than Tuesday at 11:59 p.m.
Bates also ordered those agencies to work with the organization that brought the suit, Doctors for America, to identify other resources that its members rely on to provide care, and restore those to their Jan. 30 version by Friday.
Zachary R. Shelley, a lawyer with Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represents Doctors for America, told FedScoop on Wednesday that some of the webpages that were removed are back up and they look forward to the other pages being up in the next couple of days. The health agencies didn’t immediately respond to a FedScoop request for comment about the lawsuit compliance with the order.
Bates’s temporary restraining order is the latest action in a lawsuit Doctors for America filed Feb. 4 over the removal of information on multiple federal online health resources following an Office of Personnel Management memo. That OPM memo directed agencies to take down websites and media not in alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to rid the federal government of “gender ideology.”
That executive order defined gender ideology as including “the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.” It further defined men and women as the two options for “sex” and directed the term “gender” to be replaced with “sex” in federal policies and documents.
OPM’s subsequent Jan. 29 memo then instructed agencies to “take down all outward facing media (websites, social media accounts, etc.) that inculcate or promote gender ideology.” According to FedScoop reporting, the CDC even temporarily took down its data site to comply with that order.
In its complaint, Doctors for America said information removed by the health agencies was used daily by medical professionals to treat and diagnose patients and by researchers to conduct their work, such as carrying out clinical trials. The nonprofit argued that actions by the agencies were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the CDC and HHS also violated the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Among the nonprofit’s allegations: OPM lacked the statutory authority to mandate the removal of the webpages in violation of the administrative law statute, CDC didn’t provide statutorily required “adequate notice” to change “significant information dissemination products” under the paperwork reduction law, and FDA removed webpages important for clinical trials, in violation of the APA.
In addition to asking the court to order the agencies to restore the webpages and datasets, Doctors for America requested that the court enjoin CDC and HHS from removing or modifying webpages that are “significant information dissemination products” if they don’t provide adequate notice and if those changes “would deny the public timely and equitable access” to the agency’s information, among other things. The organization subsequently requested a temporary restraining order.
“The removal of this information deprives researchers of access to information that is necessary for treating patients, for developing clinical studies that produce results that accurately reflect the effects treatments will have in clinical practice, and for developing practices and policies that protect the health of vulnerable populations and the country as a whole,” Doctors for America said in its complaint.
In response, lawyers for the government argued that Doctors for America wasn’t entitled to a temporary restraining order, arguing that the organization failed to meet the bar of showing “irreparable harm.”
The government noted that the nonprofit submitted declarations from two of its member doctors who said they were impacted by the changes, but said that those declarations weren’t enough to show the type of harm needed for such an order.
“Indeed, DFA’s own submissions show that much of this very information remains available through archival copies hosted by the Wayback Machine,” the government’s filing said. It suggested that at least one of the doctors alleging harm might bookmark the links from the complaint.
How USAID employees were blocked from making payments
Large swaths of workers at USAID have been blocked from implementing payments by being shut out of a pair of web platforms used to assist in agency procurement, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Blocking access to the Global Acquisition and Assistance System (GLAAS) and the related Phoenix system constitutes one of the ways that the agency’s activities have largely been put on hold. Those actions, experts have warned, could be illegal. Contractors are now suing the Trump administration for its approach to winding down the agency, while a federal judge also temporarily blocked an effort to put longtime USAID employees on leave.
Without access to these tools, payments to myriad USAID programs cannot go through, sources said.
GLAAS is an adapted version of PRISM, a procurement tool that’s used throughout the federal government. The platform is connected to Phoenix, the agency’s financial management system, and highlights how much an agency’s operations depend on accessing just a handful of information technology systems.
“GLAAS supports USAID’s mission by tracking development resources more accurately to ensure effective management of programs and budgets,” per a Data.gov page describing the system. “As part of the U.S. Government’s E-Gov initiative and business modernization efforts, USAID has deployed GLAAS across USAID/Washington and globally to all USAID Missions.”
A privacy impact assessment for the GLAAS system is no longer available because the USAID website has been taken offline.
The GLAAS system is hosted by USAID and is used for invoices and making awards and adjustments, while the Phoenix system handles procurement and payments.
The Professional Services Council, a trade organization that represents federal contractors, said in a press release this month that the U.S. government owes organizations it represents around $500 million, pointing specifically to Department of State and USAID contractor invoices.
Information technology issues have been at the center of USAID’s collapse. Email accounts and phones at the agency have been disconnected, sources have told FedScoop, and the main website for the agency remains offline.