SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
AFGE Files Emergency Motion to Protect the Speech Rights of Federal Employees During Impeachment
COLLEGE PARK, Md.
The American Federation of Government Employees and AFGE Local 2578 filed a motion in federal court on Friday, Jan. 24, to protect the First Amendment rights of government employees during the ongoing impeachment process.
The motion for a preliminary injunction asks a federal court to immediately suspend controversial guidance issued by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in late 2018 that has effectively barred federal workers from expressing views about the impeachment of President Donald Trump while at work.
AFGE had filed suit against OSC in August 2019 to block the guidance, but with the impeachment trial dominating national news, the issue has become more urgent as the policy is chilling the free speech rights of federal employees -- even as senior political appointees in the White House and other federal agencies have openly attacked the impeachment process without consequences.
"The Trump impeachment is THE major news story dominating the headlines. For federal employees, he is top management, and it is absurd to think impeachment of the boss will not be discussed at lunch and at the water cooler," AFGE National Secretary-Treasurer Everett Kelley said. "Worse yet, it is a legislative act not related to electoral activity as defined under the Hatch Act. We view it as unconstitutional restraint of free speech."
"The chilling impact of these rules has only gotten worse as the question of whether the president should be impeached moved from a speculative debate to a reality. Government employees have a right to speak about this historic matter," said Austin Evers, Executive Director of American Oversight, a non-partisan government watchdog representing AFGE in this case. "We are particularly concerned that OSC has taken no action against high-profile defenders of the president -- such as counselor Kellyanne Conway -- who, from their government perches, have weighed in against impeachment while ordinary civil servants who might hold different views must refrain from speaking out or risk losing their jobs."
The motion was filed as part of AFGE's ongoing lawsuit to block Hatch Act guidance issued by the OSC on Nov. 27, 2018, that presumptively restricts federal employees from expressing any opinion on "impeachment" or policy matters if the words "#resist" or "resistance" are used. If the court grants the motion for preliminary injunction, the guidance would be prohibited from taking effect while the case proceeds.
In the guidance, which equates the concept of "impeachment" with "removal from office," OSC confusingly advises that federal employees are allowed to discuss whether the president should or should not be impeached, but they are not allowed to advocate for or against impeachment -- a meaningless distinction that has made silence the only safe option for workers wishing to avoid potential punishment.
Following swift public pushback, including a letter from American Oversight, OSC issued a clarification of its initial position on November 30th, 2018, but made no meaningful change to the troubling substance of the guidance, compounding the concerns of government watchdogs, unions, and the public.
The preliminary injunction motion is accompanied by declarations of two AFGE Local 2578 members who are federal employees whose speech has been chilled by the OSC policy. One is an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Maryland who wishes to express views about whether President Trump should be impeached, but has refrained from doing so due to the guidance. The other member is a NARA employee in Missouri who wishes to use the terms "resist" or "resistance" while at work, but also has refrained from using those words.
AFGE is represented by the law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP and American Oversight. The lawsuit, filed in Maryland federal court on August 13, 2019, seeks to compel the OSC to rescind the November 2018 guidance and enforce the Hatch Act without violating the statutory and constitutional rights of federal employees. If granted, the motion for preliminary injunction would prevent OSC from enforcing the guidance while the lawsuit proceeds.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union proudly representing 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas. Workers in virtually all functions of government at every federal agency depend upon AFGE for legal representation, legislative advocacy, technical expertise and informational services.
(202) 737-8700LATEST NEWS
'Unfit for Office'? Fetterman's Fitness Questioned Amid Reports of Erratic Behavior
"We can agree or disagree on Fetterman's politics," wrote one journalist, "but I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening on a human level... and not think that the best thing for him would be to resign."
May 08, 2025
Following reporting about the behavior of U.S. Sen. John Fetterman—including concerns voiced by current and former staff have concerns about the mental wellbeing of the Democratic lawmaker from Pennsylvania—a growing number of political observers are openly questioning his ability to serve in public office.
A story in New York Magazine last week featuring the concern by staffwas followed by new Associated Pressreporting Thursday, which recounted a recent meeting between Fetterman and representatives from a teachers union that went awry when Fetterman began shouting and asking why "everybody is mad at me."
"Why does everyone hate me, what did I ever do," Fetterman reportedly said, according to someone who was briefed on what had taken place, the AP reported. A staff member ended the meeting and ushered the visitors out, and then broke down crying in the hallway.
Fetterman bested Mehmet Oz, the current head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in a race for the U.S. Senate in 2022, despite suffering a stroke while on the campaign trail. In 2023, after being sworn into the Senate, Fetterman checked himself into the hospital to seek treatment for clinical depression, and drew praise for being open about his diagnosis and seeking care.
His standing among progressive supporters has also soured over the past year and a half in part due to his unwavering support for Israel during the country's deadly military campaign in Gaza.
Fetterman was also the only senate Democrat to fly down to Mar-a-Lago and meet with U.S. President Donald Trump following Trump's victory in 2024.
Jeet Heer, the national affairs correspondent for The Nation, reacted to the AP's reporting with expressions of concern and suggested it may be time for the Democrat to step aside.
"We can agree or disagree on Fetterman's politics (I'm not a fan of his shift)," wrote Heer, "but I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening on a human level, to this man and his family, and not think that the best thing for him would be to resign so he can look after himself better."
According to New York Magazine, 14 months after Fetterman's discharge from the hospital, his former chief of staff Adam Jentleson, sent a long email to the medical director who had overseen Fetterman's care, writing that he thought Fetterman was on a "bad trajectory" and sharing concerns that if nothing changed, Fetterman "won't be with us for much longer."
In the email, Jentleson said he was concerned that Fetterman appeared not to be taking his meds, that he was displaying megalomania and conspiratorial thinking, "lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room," and engaging in "repetitive and self centered monologues."
To the medical director, Jentleson also detailed that Fetterman had purchased a gun, engaged in a pattern of self isolation, and that he drove his car recklessly to the point that staff would not ride in the car with him.
"Former and current staffers paint a picture of an erratic senator who has become almost impossible to work for and whose mental-health situation is more serious and complicated than previously reported," the magazine reported.
"Jesus," wrote Aaron Regunberg, a progressive policy advocate wrote on social media in response to the reporting," John Fetterman should not be a U.S. Senator."
Jonathan Cohn, another progressive activist, commented on his personal X account that Fetterman was "creating an unsafe environment for his staff and constituents, and that makes him unfit for office."
On Tuesday, speaking to CNN, Fetterman called the article in New York Magazine a "one-source hit piece, and it involved maybe two or three and anonymous disgruntled staffers saying just absolute false things."
Few Democrats have come to Fetterman's aid in the wake of the reporting. There's been increased private talks about primary challenges to Fetterman, perPolitico, and according to the outlet "some Pennsylvania Democrats have begun to quietly review the rules about what would happen if he stepped down and whispered about potential replacements."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Financial Murder': Dems Slam Trump Team Falsely Declaring Thousands Dead in Social Security File
"This inhumane, illegal, and unconstitutional action will inflict—and already has inflicted—irreparable harm on these individuals," senators wrote of the effort to make thousands of immigrants "self-deport."
May 08, 2025
Just a day after Senate Republicans confirmed U.S. President Donald Trump's Social Security Administration commissioner, Frank Bisignano, the chamber's Democrats on Wednesday announced a series of letters about outstanding questions and concerns regarding the federal agency—including one that demands an investigation into what they call attempted "financial murder."
Two of the letters unveiled Wednesday were dated April 30. Both were led by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and signed by a dozen members of the Democratic Caucus: one was to Leland Dudek, then acting commissioner of the SSA, and another was to Michelle Anderson, assistant inspector general for audit at the agency.
The latter asks the SSA Office of the Inspector General to probe reports that the administration "is taking steps to place certain categories of immigrants who have lawfully obtained Social Security numbers (SSNs) in its Death Master File (DMF)," which contains data on more than 141 million people whose deaths were reported to the agency, in an effort to make them "self-deport."
The letter to Dudek declares that "this inhumane, illegal, and unconstitutional action will inflict—and already has inflicted—irreparable harm on these individuals, undermines trust in and accuracy of the Social Security programs, and sets a dangerous precedent in allowing the government to take away Americans' access to their earned Social Security benefits."
"If living number-holders are improperly transferred to the DMF, they lose their ability to legally work in the United States, as well as access to any earned Social Security benefits, healthcare, banking and credit cards, and access to virtually every other exchange with a third-party that is verified by a valid SSN," the letter explains. "The result is, as former SSA Commissioner Martin O'Malley put it, 'tantamount to financial murder.'"
"Changing the name of the database to the 'Ineligible Master File' as a clumsy attempt to evade public criticism or legal exposure does not mitigate these consequences to these individuals, as has already been reported," the letter asserts, urging Dudek "to immediately cease this practice and remove all individuals placed on the DMF through this initiative."
In addition to Wyden, the letters were signed by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
Warren and Wyden also partnered with the chamber's New York Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, for a Wednesday letter to Bisignano, who was confirmed Tuesday with a 53-47 vote along party lines.
"Since President Trump took office, we have—prompted by the administration’s attacks on Social Security—sent 17 letters to the Social Security Administration," they wrote. "These letters have sought answers for why the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appear to be dismantling the SSA, potentially depriving Americans of their hard-earned benefits."
As the letter details:
We have not received responses to the vast majority of our questions. In fact, acting Commissioner Leland Dudek has reportedly instructed staff to not respond to public or congressional inquiries. The limited answers we have received have been unsatisfactory," they continued.
We have also requested information from you directly. Through direct inquires, your hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, and post-hearing questions for the record, we have sought to determine whether you intend to continue DOGE's disastrous efforts to hollow out the SSA. In response, you repeatedly claimed that, because you were not yet working at SSA, you did not have sufficient information to answer. You made these claims despite the fact that a former SSA employee whistleblower has reported that you have been participating extensively in high-level operational, management, and personnel decisions at SSA.
Now that Bisignano has been confirmed, the senators are demanding answers to their nearly 200 questions.
"We are extraordinarily concerned about the future of the SSA under the Trump administration, and Americans deserve information about the fate of their benefits under your watch," the senators wrote. "We therefore ask that you provide full and complete answers to all of our questions no later than May 21, 2025."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'US Mail Is Not For Sale': Americans Across Political Spectrum Oppose Postal Service Privatization
"Postal customers should trust their gut when it comes to schemes to sell off or transfer the USPS," said the head of the American Postal Workers Union.
May 08, 2025
As the Trump administration signaled a potential step toward privatizing the U.S. Postal Service with the reported selection of a FedEx board member to serve as postmaster general, new polling on Thursday showed just how strongly the American public would oppose such a move.
The survey by Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion Research, which was commissioned by the American Postal Workers Union, found that 60% of respondents were opposed to privatizing the postal service, while just 26% were in favor.
The opposition cut across ideological, geographic, and demographic divides, with people in all regions of the country saying they wanted to maintain the USPS as a public service by a margin of at least 29 points—and as many as 40 points in western states.
While rural voters supported President Donald Trump by a 23-point margin in the 2024 election, the research firms posited that the heavy reliance people in far-flung areas have on the USPS helped push rural respondents to say they oppose privatization, with 58% saying they were against it.
As Common Dreams reported last month, an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies found that private mail carriers like FedEx and UPS already charge "remote surcharges" to 8% of all U.S. ZIP Codes—home to nearly 4 million people—because they are in mountain communities and other remote areas. While USPS has a universal service obligation, people in rural areas pay up to $15.50 for deliveries from private companies.
Fifty-six percent of Americans said privatization would result in higher prices for mailing packages and letters, while 17% said prices were likely to improve.
Without competition from USPS, private companies could impose additional charges for weekend deliveries, fuel, residential deliveries, and more.
"Postal customers should trust their gut when it comes to schemes to sell off or transfer the USPS," said APWU president Mark Dimondstein. "Plans to privatize the Post Office are about enriching Wall Street and not serving Main Street. Evidence shows that selling off the USPS would lead to higher prices for postal services as well as higher prices for shipping packages at FedEx and UPS."
On the House floor recently, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) warned that "corporations won't serve what isn't profitable."
"This isn't about efficiency," she said. "This is about dismantling public services so they can prove government doesn't work."
The poll was released two months after Wells Fargo presented a five-step plan for privatizing USPS to Wall Street investors, including raising USPS prices by as much as 140%, selling postal real estate to commercial bidders, and imposing mass layoffs on the service's 600,000 employees.
The bank said privatization would lead to the "harvesting," or closing, of neighborhood post offices across the country—something 72% of respondents opposed in Thursday's poll.
Trump ally Elon Musk also said in March that Amtrak and USPS were top targets for the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which the president selected him to lead and which has pushed to dismantle numerous government agencies and laid off nearly 300,000 federal employees.
"I think logically we should privatize anything that can reasonably be privatized," Musk said. Trump has also expressed support for privatization.
Respondents to Thursday's poll expressed support for a number of steps that could strengthen the U.S. Postal Service's finances, including 77% who backed making office supplies available for purchase in post offices, 72% who supported the selling of hunting and fishing licenses, and 60% who supported making magazines and newspapers available for purchase.
"The survey results indicate that the outlook is good in our ongoing fight against privatizers trying to sell off our public Postal Service for profit," said the APWU. "We should remain steady in our message—the U.S. Mail Is Not for Sale!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular