Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Unions challenge termination of collective bargaining agreements at Defense Department, (Jul 10, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

AFGE and NFFE affiliates allege the Defense Department directive unlawfully ended contracts covering tens of thousands of civilian employees.

Several affiliates of the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees filed suit against the U.S. Department of Defense and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, seeking to overturn the department’s termination of collective bargaining agreements covering tens of thousands of civilian employees. The lawsuit was filed July 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by more than 20 AFGE and NFFE affiliates.

The challenged directive. The complaint challenges an April 9, 2026, memorandum in which Hegseth directed Defense Department agencies to terminate all collective bargaining agreements to which the department is a party within 24 hours, subject to limited exceptions. According to the unions, hundreds of union contracts were subsequently terminated nationwide.

According to the complaint, the Defense Department had continued to honor its collective bargaining agreements for more than a year after President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14251 in March 2025. The unions allege that Hegseth’s memorandum represented an unexplained reversal of that policy and directed agencies to terminate agreements without considering alternatives, reliance interests, or the effects on represented employees and unions.

APA claims. The plaintiffs contend that the memorandum and the actions implementing it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they were arbitrary and capricious and not the product of reasoned decision-making. The complaint alleges that the department failed to explain why collective bargaining agreements had to be terminated more than a year after issuance of the executive order rather than after ongoing litigation concerning the order was resolved or after the contracts expired under their own terms.

Alleged effects of implementation. The suit further alleges that implementation of the memorandum caused widespread disruption across Defense Department facilities. According to the complaint, agencies stopped accepting grievances under collective bargaining agreements, eliminated official time for union representatives, required unions to vacate office space provided under the agreements, and denied employees representation rights previously available under the contracts.

Coverage. The unions also claim that the department exceeded its authority by terminating agreements affecting employees who work in local employing offices that include police officers, security guards, and firefighters. The complaint alleges that Executive Order 14251 expressly preserved collective bargaining rights for those local employing offices but that the department nevertheless denied rights and contractual protections to other employees working within them.

Union response. In announcing the lawsuit, AFGE said the unions contend that Hegseth’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple respects and misinterpreted the executive order on which the memorandum was based. The organization said the terminations resulted in the loss of union rights affecting tens of thousands of federal employees.

Statements. “The Department of Defense's termination of AFGE contracts, carried out under Pete Hegseth's unlawful directive, is an insult to the hardworking men and women who serve our military,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement. Kelley said some of the affected affiliates had collective bargaining agreements in place for more than 50 years before they were terminated.

NFFE National President Randy Erwin said in a statement that Defense Department employees have exercised collective bargaining rights for decades and that the administration “unilaterally and illegally” stripped those rights from workers. He said NFFE locals joined the litigation to challenge the cancellation of their collective bargaining agreements.

Relief sought. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including a ruling that Hegseth’s April 9 memorandum was unlawful, reinstatement of collective bargaining agreements terminated pursuant to the directive, an order barring further implementation of the memorandum, and an award of attorney fees and costs.

News: LitigationNewsTrends PublicEmployees Bargaining UnionsMembers AgencyNews