The Trump administration’s budget chief said the number of federal job cuts during the shutdown will likely climb “north of 10,000,” even as a federal judge temporarily blocked the layoffs from moving forward.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought made the projection on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025, after roughly 4,000 workers had already received reduction-in-force notices.
A few hours later, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary restraining order that pauses new layoffs and the implementation of recent notices while a unions’ lawsuit proceeds.
What OMB says is coming
Vought told a conservative radio program that the current tally is only a “snapshot,” adding the administration intends to keep issuing RIFs during the shutdown to “stay on offense for the taxpayer.”
He said the goal is not only to trim payrolls, but to shutter parts of the bureaucracy that the White House argues deliver little value. Follow-up coverage summarized his remarks and the broader plan to push layoffs beyond the initial wave.
Administration officials have framed the cuts as part of a long-promised effort to rein in a federal apparatus that ballooned through emergency spending and rulemaking.
They say many positions are redundant or tied to programs that Congress has not funded. Supporters of the move argue taxpayers should not bankroll “temporary” expansions that became permanent.
What the court ordered
After a Wednesday hearing in San Francisco, Judge Illston barred agencies from issuing new RIF notices during or because of the shutdown and from taking steps to implement the Oct. 10 notices already sent. The order, sought by major federal unions, applies to more than 30 agencies and will remain in force while the court considers a longer injunction.
Illston’s opinion pointed to public statements from President Donald Trump and Vought that, in the court’s view, suggested political motivation behind the timing and targets of the layoffs. The AP’s write-up notes the judge cited references to cutting so-called “Democrat agencies” in explaining her reasoning, and trade press published excerpts of the order’s language.
The administration is expected to challenge the ruling. For now, the court’s pause means agencies cannot process RIFs tied to the lapse in appropriations, and employees who received notices should not be moved out of their positions under those notices while the order stands.
How a RIF works, and what makes this unusual
A reduction in force is a formal process that typically requires advance notice, retention scoring based on tenure and performance, and opportunities for reassignment. In ordinary times, agencies use RIFs sparingly and with months of planning.
What makes the current fight unusual is the use of RIFs during an active shutdown, when employees are usually either furloughed with back pay guaranteed or designated “excepted” to keep critical services running. Government operations outlets emphasized that mass layoffs during a shutdown are unprecedented in modern practice, and that most RIFs ordinarily carry 60-day notice periods before separations take effect.
Union plaintiffs, led by the American Federation of Government Employees and allied groups, argue that firing thousands in the middle of a funding lapse is punitive and violates administrative law. They say OMB and OPM “took advantage of the shutdown” to skirt procedural safeguards.
The government counters that agencies maintain the authority to eliminate positions that lack appropriations and that the public interest favors downsizing programs the White House says Congress will not restore.
The politics and the legal stakes
The shutdown, which began Oct. 1, has hardened partisan lines. The White House says Democrats are using the budget to lock in expanded subsidies and regulatory programs that voters never approved. Critics say the administration is leveraging the shutdown to remake the civil service without congressional consent.
A bid by Sens. Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine to curb certain executive actions during the lapse fell short this week, but their coalition signaled more challenges ahead.
Legally, the case turns on whether the executive can deploy RIFs because of a shutdown to terminate career employees at scale, and whether public statements about targeting specific agencies taint the action as arbitrary or politically discriminatory.
The temporary restraining order suggests the judge sees a credible claim that the process exceeded statutory authority. If the court issues a preliminary injunction, agencies would likely have to restart or rejustify any planned reductions after funding resumes.
