Welcome to an insightful conversation with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, currently at the helm of Government Curated. With his deep expertise in federal labor relations and environmental policy, Donald offers a unique perspective on the recent controversial move by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to terminate its union contracts. In this interview, we explore the motivations behind the EPA’s decision, the broader implications for federal workers, the connection to national security claims, and the potential impact on environmental protection efforts. Join us as we unpack these complex issues with clarity and depth.
Can you walk us through the EPA’s announcement on Friday about terminating its union contracts, and what stood out to you in their communication to union officials?
Certainly, Debora. On Friday afternoon, the EPA sent an email to union officials declaring an immediate termination of their contracts with several labor organizations. What struck me was the abruptness of the message and the justification tied to national security concerns. The email explicitly referenced a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that supported the government’s stance on avoiding irreparable harm in a national security context. This framing suggests the EPA is positioning itself as acting under a broader mandate, though it raises questions about how labor contracts directly relate to such high-stakes issues. The tone and timing also felt like a deliberate push to align with recent executive directives, leaving little room for dialogue with the unions.
Which unions are bearing the brunt of this decision, and how does it affect the EPA workforce?
The unions impacted include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and the National Association of Independent Labor (NAIL). Together, these groups represent a significant portion of the EPA’s workforce, spanning various roles from scientists to administrative staff. While exact numbers aren’t public, we’re talking about thousands of employees who now face uncertainty about their workplace rights and protections. Certain departments, especially those with high union membership like field operations, could feel a heavier impact due to the loss of organized representation.
What reasons did the EPA provide for terminating these contracts so urgently, and how do they connect to national security?
The EPA’s rationale, as outlined in their email, hinges on preventing irreparable harm to national security, a justification linked to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on August 1, 2025, which stayed a prior injunction blocking a related executive order. They argue that maintaining these union contracts somehow undermines critical security interests, though the specifics of that connection remain vague. It’s a broad claim, and I suspect it’s more about leveraging legal and political momentum from the court’s decision to push through labor policy changes rather than addressing a tangible security threat within the EPA itself.
How does President Trump’s March executive order factor into this EPA decision, and what broader effects does it have on federal workers?
President Trump’s March executive order is the backbone of this move. It effectively strips collective bargaining rights from about two-thirds of the federal workforce by exempting numerous agencies and subcomponents from federal labor laws, again under the guise of national security. For the EPA, this order provided the policy framework to terminate contracts. Beyond the EPA, it impacts workers across various agencies by limiting their ability to negotiate working conditions, wages, and grievances. It’s a sweeping change that redefines the relationship between federal employees and their employers, tilting power heavily toward management.
We’ve seen the Veterans Affairs Department also cancel its union agreements recently. How does the EPA’s approach compare to that situation?
The Veterans Affairs Department was the first to fully implement this executive order last week, and there are striking similarities with the EPA’s actions. Both agencies cited national security and leaned on the same legal arguments to justify terminating agreements. However, the EPA’s announcement seemed more abrupt, with less apparent regard for ongoing litigation or guidance from the Office of Personnel Management. The timing also differed slightly, with VA acting just a week prior, suggesting a coordinated but staggered rollout across agencies to manage public and legal backlash.
What specific changes are EPA employees facing now that these contracts are terminated?
The changes are significant. First, union officials can no longer use ‘official time,’ meaning they won’t be paid their regular salary while handling union matters like negotiations or grievances. Second, the EPA is reclaiming office space previously used by unions, which disrupts their ability to organize and meet. Lastly, the agency is stepping away from arbitration proceedings, treating past decisions as nonbinding and only compensating arbitrators for work already done. These shifts strip away key mechanisms for employee representation and conflict resolution, leaving workers with fewer avenues to address workplace issues.
The EPA has mandated that employees focus 100% on agency business during work hours. How are employees responding to this new expectation?
From what I’ve gathered, there’s a mix of frustration and concern among EPA employees. This rule essentially bars any union-related work during regular hours, forcing it into personal time or approved leave. Many worry this will add to their workload, as they juggle agency duties without the support structures unions provided. There’s also uncertainty about how strictly this will be enforced. The EPA has mentioned additional training for employees to adapt to non-union duties, but details are sparse, and it’s unclear if supervisors are equipped to handle the transition smoothly.
Justin Chen from AFGE Council 238 described this move as ‘unlawful and authoritarian.’ Can you unpack the reasoning behind his strong criticism?
Justin Chen’s statement reflects a deep concern that the EPA’s unilateral action undermines democratic principles and the rule of law. He sees it as an overreach, bypassing established labor agreements without negotiation or due process, which he labels as authoritarian. More critically, he argues that stripping workplace rights from EPA workers hampers the agency’s mission. When employees lose protections, morale and effectiveness can suffer, potentially weakening the EPA’s ability to enforce regulations on clean water and air. His view is that this isn’t just a labor issue—it’s a public safety issue, tied directly to environmental protection.
What’s your forecast for the future of labor relations within federal agencies like the EPA in light of these developments?
Looking ahead, I think we’re entering a contentious period for labor relations in federal agencies. The EPA’s move, alongside VA’s, signals a broader push to diminish union influence across the government, likely driven by executive priorities. However, legal challenges, like those promised by AFGE, could slow or even reverse some of these changes if courts find the actions overstep authority. There’s also the potential for significant employee pushback—strikes or other forms of protest aren’t out of the question, though they’re risky for federal workers. Ultimately, the balance between agency control and worker rights will hinge on political shifts and judicial outcomes over the next few years. It’s a space to watch closely.
