Here we go again. Another day, another federal judge flexing his lifetime appointment like a personal fiefdom. This time, it’s Judge William Alsup, a 79-year-old Clinton appointee in San Francisco—because of course it’s San Francisco—who’s decided that the duly elected president of the United States doesn’t actually have the authority to run the executive branch. That power, apparently, belongs to the judiciary now.
Alsup ruled that the Trump administration must rehire thousands of federal employees who were let go since the inauguration, claiming the firings were a “gimmick” to get around workforce reduction laws. Never mind that these were probationary and term employees—positions that, by definition, are not permanent. Never mind that the Office of Personnel Management, acting on behalf of the president, absolutely has the authority to make these personnel decisions. No, none of that matters when there’s a chance to score points against Trump.
And just look at Alsup’s courtroom theatrics. He didn’t just rule against the administration; he practically accused DOJ attorneys of perjury. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth,” he said, as if he were auditioning for a legal drama. He scolded them for “stonewalling” and refused to allow the government to bring in witnesses. Because who needs evidence when you’ve already made up your mind?
But here’s the real kicker: Alsup claims this ruling is based on the Reduction in Force Act—a law that doesn’t even apply to the circumstances in question. So what we have here is a judge unilaterally rewriting federal employment law, deciding that temporary government jobs are now permanent, and overriding the president’s constitutional authority to manage the executive branch. No big deal, right?
This is not just judicial overreach; this is a direct challenge to the very structure of our government. If this ruling stands, the president of the United States will have less power over the executive branch than an unelected federal judge with a lifetime appointment. Imagine if this had happened during the Obama administration—can you picture the outrage if a Reagan-appointed judge had blocked Obama from hiring or firing executive branch employees? The media would have been in full meltdown mode.
Clinton appointee Judge William Alsup says the Trump Admin has to rehire 30,000 laid off probationary hires. He says that trying to cut headcount is a “sham” and actually it’s legally mandatory for taxpayers to keep paying them.
What will blue judges come up with next? Will they… pic.twitter.com/hFyOVByajQ
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 13, 2025
The legal argument here is laughable, and it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. But the damage is already done. Cases like this are why we have a bloated, unaccountable federal bureaucracy—because every time a president tries to clean house, some activist judge swoops in to defend the swamp.
And let’s not ignore the role of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) in all this. Somehow, they managed to intervene on behalf of employees who aren’t even part of a union bargaining unit. How does that work? Since when do government unions get to dictate federal employment policy? Oh, right—since forever. Because in Washington, the unions call the shots, and the courts are more than happy to back them up.
Judge William Alsup has no authority to decide who the federal government hires or fires. He has abused his power and should be impeached. pic.twitter.com/1M6BCIu6yQ
— Brad (@BradleyCnCO) March 13, 2025
This is about more than just a few thousand jobs. This is about the fundamental question of who runs the government: the elected president or an unelected judiciary? The Constitution makes it pretty clear that it’s the former, but that won’t stop judges like Alsup from trying to tip the balance in the other direction.
This case will be appealed, and when it inevitably gets overturned, expect the usual hand-wringing from the left about the “independence of the judiciary.” But let’s be clear: a judge blocking the president from managing the executive branch is not independence—it’s obstruction. And if the courts keep going down this road, they might just find that the American people have had enough.
