A federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's sweeping overhaul of federal agencies, effectively hitting pause on a key part of the president’s plan to streamline the federal workforce. 

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a 14-day temporary restraining order halting further implementation of the executive order signed by Trump on February 11. The order aimed to reorganize 20 federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — a division that Trump created to lead the restructuring effort.

The judge's ruling came after a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments filed a lawsuit, arguing that the president’s executive order violated the Constitution by attempting to “radically restructure and dismantle the federal government” without congressional approval. Judge Illston, a Clinton appointee, agreed, stating that while the president does have the authority to propose changes to federal agencies, he must do so in a lawful manner and in coordination with Congress.

Is This Another Example of Judicial Overreach?

Once again, we’re witnessing a single federal judge attempt to dictate nationwide policy from the bench. Judge Illston’s ruling doesn’t just halt Trump’s executive order; it effectively undermines the authority of the chief executive to direct the federal workforce — a power that is explicitly granted to the president.

This is not a one-off case. It’s a pattern of behavior we’ve seen repeatedly over the last several years, particularly from district judges in liberal strongholds like San Francisco. Judges like Illston are using their gavels to interfere with executive actions they personally disagree with, extending their rulings far beyond the confines of their jurisdiction.

READ MORE: On a Party-Line Vote, the House Passes the 'No Rogue Rulings Act' to Curb Activist Judges

This is exactly why Trump and his supporters have been vocal about the need to reform the judiciary. District judges should not be able to issue nationwide injunctions based solely on their own ideological leanings. The Constitution grants the executive branch the authority to manage the federal workforce, and Trump’s order to implement reduction-in-force (RIF) notices and streamline agency operations falls squarely within that authority.

The Bigger Issue: Judicial Activism Is Out of Control

Judge Illston’s ruling exemplifies a growing trend where district judges are using temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions as tools to block executive actions they disagree with. This is judicial activism, plain and simple. It’s one thing to hear a case and rule on it within the confines of a specific district. It’s another to issue a nationwide injunction that overrides the president’s authority across the entire country.

In this case, Illston argues that Trump should have sought congressional approval for the reorganization. But let’s not forget that presidents — including Trump in his first term — have used executive orders to direct agency operations. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not to decide what presidential directives are appropriate. If Congress disagrees with Trump’s restructuring plan, it has the power to pass legislation to counter it. But a single district judge should not have that power.

The Real Power Struggle: Executive vs. Judicial Authority

The heart of the issue here is a power struggle between the executive and judicial branches. Trump’s executive order directed agencies to begin implementing RIF notices, initiate layoffs, and reorganize certain divisions — actions that are well within the president’s authority as the head of the executive branch.

But Judge Illston’s ruling effectively freezes those actions, claiming that the president needs congressional approval to carry them out. This is a blatant overreach of judicial power. It’s not the judiciary’s job to micromanage the executive branch. There is power to pause it within their own district while they take a closer look. There is power to address it within the confines of that district. 

But there is no power for a district judge to make a nationwide ruling because they disagree with the executive branch's actions. 

Yet, that’s exactly what Illston is doing. If this ruling is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent where a single district judge can unilaterally override the president’s authority on a whim, effectively creating a fourth branch of government — the activist judiciary.

What’s Next?

The Trump administration has already filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and it’s likely that this case will continue to wind its way through the courts. But the broader issue of judicial overreach remains unaddressed. The president’s authority to direct the federal workforce and implement agency restructuring must be upheld — otherwise, we’re looking at a future where unelected judges, not elected leaders, are the ones calling the shots.

The Constitution is clear: The president is the head of the executive branch. If Judge Illston and her fellow activist judges don’t understand that, it’s time for Congress to step in and remind them.