White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has reignited a debate over the motivation behind the mass firing of federal employees. While the Trump administration initially cited poor performance as the reason for dismissals, comments Leavitt made in a recent press briefing—namely, that judges are undermining “this president’s agenda”—raise new questions about the radical shake-up.
In the wake of two federal courts ordering that workers be reinstated, Leavitt cried foul while speaking to the press. “You cannot have a low-level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the president of the United States,” Leavitt said. She further argued that the courts should not interfere in matters of executive authority. “That is completely absurd. As the executive of the executive branch, the president has the ability to fire or hire.”
Leavitt then accused the judges of “trying to block this president’s agenda.” Seemingly on a roll, the press secretary then strongly defended the Trump administration’s broader legal strategy. “We are going to fight back,” she promised. “[Trump] was indicted nearly 200 times, and he’s in the Oval Office now because all of the indictments, all of these injunctions have always been unconstitutional and unfair.”
Legal experts promptly addressed Leavitt’s comments, pointing out that judicial review is an essential component of the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution (and that Trump has only been indicted four times). Moreover, many pundits interpret Leavitt’s comments as admitting that the terminations were part of a broader political strategy, contradicting the administration’s earlier narrative.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, pointed out the contradiction on X, stating, “Pay attention here to how the White House is basically admitting to have lied about why these people were fired. Now they claim this was the president’s command and must not be overruled. But when the firings were happening, they claimed on paper it was for ‘performance’ reasons.”
The mass terminations being overturned was a blow to the Trump administration, which had contended that they were necessary for performance management. However, the courts disagreed, with Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California calling the administration’s justification “frivolous” and Judge James Bredar of the District of Maryland labeling the process a “sham.”
Despite the judicial orders, the administration plans to appeal the rulings, asserting that the injunctions issued by the courts violate the separation of powers and presidential authority. Leavitt’s repeated dismissal of the rulings as “partisan” and “unconstitutional” has only intensified concerns about the administration’s commitment to respecting the checks and balances established by the Constitution.
