
Holden Hopkins is a student at Harvard Law School.
In today’s News & Commentary, the DOJ moves anti-immigrant hiring allegations against Elon Musk’s Space-X, and federal unions and agencies respond to Musk’s email report demands.
The Department of Justice is moving to drop discrimination charges against SpaceX, a company owned by billionaire Elon Musk, after the case was put on hold for over a year. The charges stemmed from allegations that SpaceX discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for jobs, violating federal anti-discrimination laws. The DOJ cited a legal challenge to administrative law judges as the reason for abandoning the case, aligning itself with corporate interests that argue these judges lack constitutional authority.
This move is yet another by the government which appears to personally benefit Musk and his various companies. Musk himself has of course been prominently involved in matters involving the federal government and workforce. As Gil reported yesterday, the billionaire and purported head of the Department of Government Efficiency sent an email to all federal employees demanding they reply with a report on what they were working on at the risk of termination. With the deadline for these “reports” looming tonight, federal worker unions and agencies have been quick to respond.
Musk’s email, reportedly sent from the Office of Personnel Management, has been called “un-American” by Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, while the American Federation of Government Employees has vowed to challenge any unlawful terminations. The unions argue that Musk has no legal authority over federal employment and that the directive violates established procedures for managing the federal workforce. Meanwhile, supervisors at the DOJ have directed staff not to respond, citing potential ethics concerns.
This latest controversy comes amid a broader pattern of federal workforce reductions under the Trump administration, which has already dismissed nearly 30,000 employees in recent weeks. OPM, which serves as the government’s HR department, has been using a centralized email system to bypass agency leadership and communicate directly with workers. A recent federal court ruling upheld OPM’s right to use this system, despite concerns from employees and unions that it was being leveraged to pressure resignations. The latest email, however, omitted prior assurances that responses would be voluntary, further fueling concerns of mass firings.
Unions representing nearly a million federal employees have demanded that OPM rescind the email and issue an apology, warning that the administration’s actions conflict with federal workforce management laws. AFGE has made it clear that employees are under no legal obligation to comply with the directive and has pledged to fight any retaliatory firings in court.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
June 22
California lawmakers challenge Garmon preemption in the absence of an NLRB quorum and Utah organizers successfully secure a ballot referendum to overturn HB 267.
June 20
Three state bills challenge Garmon preemption; Wisconsin passes a bill establishing portable benefits for gig workers; and a sharp increase in workplace ICE raids contribute to a nationwide labor shortage.
June 19
Report finds retaliatory action by UAW President; Senators question Trump's EEOC pick; California considers new bill to address federal labor law failures.
June 18
Companies dispute NLRB regional directors' authority to make rulings while the Board lacks a quorum; the Department of Justice loses 4,500 employees to the Trump Administration's buyout offers; and a judge dismisses Columbia faculty's lawsuit over the institution's funding cuts.
June 17
NLRB finds a reporter's online criticism of the Washington Post was not protected activity under federal labor law; top union leaders leave the Democratic National Committee amid internal strife; Uber reaches a labor peace agreement with Chicago drivers.
June 16
California considers bill requiring human operators inside autonomous delivery vehicles; Eighth Circuit considers challenge to Minnesota misclassification law and whether "having a family to support" is a gendered comment.