Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What agencies have the highest number of pending cases by federal employees claiming illegal firings during the Trump administration?
Executive summary
Available sources document legal fights and injunctions over mass firings during the 2025 government shutdown and report that the Trump administration moved to fire roughly 4,100 employees across multiple agencies (administration figure) while trackers and unions report much larger cumulative losses of federal staff since inauguration (over 211,000 departures as of Oct. 23, 2025) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and court filings identify at least seven agencies named in reduction-in-force plans and single-agency snapshots (Education, EPA, CISA, HHS/NIH and others), but none of the available sources publish a definitive ranked list of agencies by number of pending wrongful-firing claims [4] [5] [6].
1. What the headline numbers actually say — two different tallies
Two distinct figures recur in the coverage: the administration’s count of specific layoffs connected to the shutdown (about 4,100 employees) and union/tracker tallies of broader workforce losses since the administration began, which reach into the hundreds of thousands (over 211,000 civil servants reported as having left by Oct. 23, 2025) [1] [2] [3]. Reuters and Axios cite the roughly 4,100 layoffs the administration said it executed during the shutdown legal fight [1] [2]. By contrast, the Partnership for Public Service’s Federal Harms Tracker aggregates separations, buyouts and other departures and reports the larger cumulative figure [3].
2. Which agencies were named or implicated in filings and press accounts
Coverage and filings explicitly mention several agencies targeted for RIFs or that announced personnel actions: Education (about 466 employees in one DOJ account), EPA (intent notices to small groups), DHS/CISA (RIFs considered), HHS/NIH (staff put on leave after criticizing the administration) and multiple unnamed “seven agencies” referenced in court filings related to the temporary injunction [4] [5] [7] [6]. Reporting also shows that agency-specific actions (for example at the National Park Service) contributed to broader harms cited by unions and watchdogs [8].
3. Pending claims and litigation — where the disputes are concentrated
Unions (AFGE, AFSCME) quickly sued to block mass RIFs and obtained temporary restraining orders and injunctions; federal courts have already found some prior reductions unlawful and blocked further firings during the shutdown [6] [9] [10]. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and oversight bodies have identified procedural violations and asked for reinstatements in certain sets of complaints, indicating multiple parallel avenues for employee challenges across agencies [11]. However, the sources do not provide a single, agency-by-agency count of pending wrongful-firing claims or appeals before MSPB, OSC, or federal courts [11] [6].
4. Conflicting narratives — administration vs. unions/watchdogs
The administration framed its actions as lawful and part of reorganization efforts, asserting it had laid off roughly 4,100 workers tied to the shutdown [1] [2]. Unions and watchdogs present an opposing narrative: they call the moves “illegal,” argue OMB and OPM guidance violated statutory protections, and have documented far greater cumulative attrition tied to policy initiatives and Project 2025 [12] [10] [3]. Courts have sometimes sided with unions (temporary injunctions, rulings that some mass firings were unlawful), while other rulings have declined certain remedies—showing the legal picture is fragmented [6] [13].
5. Why a ranked list of “most pending claims by agency” isn’t available in the sources
The publicly cited material includes agency-level examples and aggregated counts but does not publish a consolidated breakdown of “pending claims by agency” across OSC, MSPB, and federal courts. Coverage focuses on litigation milestones (injunctions, TROs), administration layoff totals, and agency-specific anecdotes rather than a centralized claims inventory; therefore a definitive ranked list cannot be produced from these sources alone [6] [11] [3].
6. What to watch next — where the data could emerge
Watch for court dockets in the AFGE/AFSCME suits and subsequent filings by OMB/OPM for agency-by-agency exhibits; follow OSC and MSPB case listings (where some individual complaints and recommended findings are being issued); and monitor trackers like the Federal Harms Tracker and follow-up Reuters/Axios/CNN reporting, which have been the outlets most likely to publish updated totals or agency breakdowns [6] [11] [3] [2].
Limitations: Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, agency-by-agency ranking of pending wrongful-firing claims; all assertions above cite the specific articles and trackers that report totals, agency examples, and litigation outcomes [1] [2] [3] [6] [4].