DOE and NASA Move to End Federal Union Bargaining
Federal employees at the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA just witnessed one of the most consequential labor developments in decades. DOE issued notices terminating collective bargaining agreements with unions including IFPTE, AFGE, and NTEU, while NASA reportedly began updating personnel files to classify certain positions as ineligible for union representation. Some of these bargaining units have existed for more than half a century.
The legal justification relies on a narrow provision of federal law—but whether it applies here is far from settled.
The National Security Exception in Federal Labor Law
The administration’s actions rely on 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1), a section of the Civil Service Reform Act that allows the President to exclude agencies from collective bargaining if their primary function involves intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.
This authority is not new. What is new is how broadly it is being applied. Recent executive orders cited this provision to remove bargaining rights across agencies that collectively employ a large share of the federal workforce.
The key legal phrase is “primary function.” Courts typically interpret that language carefully. Congress did not create an “any connection to national security” exception—it created a primary mission test. That distinction matters.
Why DOE and NASA Raise Legal Questions
For the Department of Energy, national security work unquestionably exists, particularly within the National Nuclear Security Administration. But DOE’s broader mission spans energy research, environmental cleanup, grid reliability, and scientific development. Many employees operate far outside national security programs.
NASA presents a similar issue. While some activities intersect with defense or security interests, the agency’s primary mission remains space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.
Applying a national security exclusion agency-wide may stretch the statute beyond what Congress intended. Courts evaluating these actions will likely examine whether the administration’s interpretation converts a limited exception into a general rule.
Decades of Collective Bargaining Matter
Another factor courts sometimes consider is historical practice. Both DOE and NASA have operated with unionized bargaining units under administrations of both political parties—including the first Trump administration.
That history could complicate the argument that collective bargaining is fundamentally incompatible with these agencies’ missions. If bargaining truly posed an inherent national security risk, courts may ask why that risk was not previously identified over decades of federal labor relations.
OPM’s Changing Position
The Office of Personnel Management’s guidance may also receive scrutiny. As recently as August of last year, OPM reportedly advised against terminating agreements with NTEU, referencing warnings from federal appellate courts.
More recently, the agency reversed course and encouraged terminations. Sudden policy shifts—especially when judicial concerns were previously acknowledged—sometimes raise questions about whether an agency acted arbitrarily under administrative law principles.
Implementation While Litigation Continues
NASA’s reported step of changing personnel files while lawsuits challenging the executive order remain active could also draw attention from courts. Judges sometimes view pre-emptive implementation during litigation as potentially prejudicial, particularly when the legal authority behind the policy is still being contested.
What Federal Employees Should Do Now
For federal employees at affected agencies, the most important takeaway is this: a notice does not mean the legal battle is finished. Multiple lawsuits are already underway, and courts will ultimately interpret how far the national security exception extends.
In the meantime, staying connected with union representatives and following updates in the litigation can help employees understand how their rights may evolve.
Moments like this can understandably trigger uncertainty. A mindful approach helps: focus on verified information, avoid reacting to rumors, and remember that many major federal employment policies evolve through years of litigation before the final rules become clear.
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.