The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2025, with a sign advising the Capitol Visitors Center is closed due to the government shutdown.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday clarified and broadened a temporary restraining order she issued earlier this week that blocks the Trump administration from laying off federal employees during the ongoing government shutdown. 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston said during an emergency hearing the restraining order affects any agency that has employees who are members of the unions that brought the lawsuit or are in collective bargaining units.

The Trump administration choosing not to recognize those union activities based on an earlier executive order doesn’t mean an agency can issue layoff notices, she said. 

Illston, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, specifically said the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services must comply with the TRO and cannot issue Reductions in Force, or RIFs. 

“It is not complicated,” Illston said. “During this time these agencies should not be doing RIFs of the protected folks that we’re talking about.” 

She also added the National Federation of Federal Employees, Service Employees International Union and National Association of Government Employees, Inc. to the lawsuit and the temporary restraining order. 

Meanwhile, as the shutdown that began Oct. 1 extends with no end in sight, administration officials said they will freeze $11 billion in Army Corps of Engineers projects and furlough Energy Department employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Unions argue administration ignoring part of judge’s order

The California case was originally brought by the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing those unions, said during the hearing the Trump administration had been “overly narrowly interpreting the scope of the TRO and ignoring some of the language in the TRO.”

Leonard pointed to a brief filed by the Department of Health and Human Services that said the agency hadn’t issued any layoff notices to workers covered by the TRO, even though an earlier filing to the court said HHS had sent notices to 982 employees.

That department, Leonard said, appeared to take the position that an earlier executive order ended all union representation at HHS. 

“The government is well aware that is a disputed issue,” Leonard said. 

Elizabeth Hedges, counsel for the Trump administration, said after considerable back and forth that she didn’t agree with Leonard and the judge’s interpretation of the temporary restraining order’s impact. 

“I would submit that’s not what the TRO says,” Hedges said, though she later told the judge she would make sure the administration complied with the updated explanation of the restraining order.  

Hedges also told the judge the Interior Department didn’t previously disclose it was contemplating layoffs because officials began considering those RIFs before the shutdown and were only going to implement them during the shutdown because it’s gone on so long. 

The judge ordered the Trump administration to tell the court by 9 a.m. Pacific on Monday about any actual or imminent layoff notices under the full scope of the restraining order. 

Army Corps to pause billions in big-city projects 

White House budget director Russ Vought announced hours before the emergency court hearing the administration plans to freeze and may unilaterally cancel billions more in funding approved by Congress. 

“The Democrat shutdown has drained the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to manage billions of dollars in projects,” Vought wrote in a social media post. “The Corps will be immediately pausing over $11 billion in lower-priority projects & considering them for cancellation, including projects in New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore. More information to come from the Army Corps of Engineers.”

The Trump administration has been cited several times by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office for not spending money approved by Congress as lawmakers intended. 

Generally, after Congress approves a spending bill and it becomes law, the president is supposed to faithfully implement its provisions. 

Any president that wants to cancel funding lawmakers already approved is supposed to send Congress a rescissions request, which starts a 45-day clock for members to approve, modify, or ignore the request. 

The Trump administration followed that legal pathway earlier this year when it asked Congress to cancel billions in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid. 

The House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans, approved the request after senators preserved full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

The White House budget office sent up another rescissions request in late August, asking lawmakers to cancel billions of additional spending on foreign aid programs. 

Neither chamber has taken action to approve that request, but Vought believes that since it was sent up within the last 45 days of the fiscal year, he is allowed to cancel that funding without congressional action. 

The GAO and Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, have both called the maneuver, known as a pocket rescission, unlawful. 

Nuclear security workers to be furloughed

The Trump administration also announced Friday that it would have more than 1,000 employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration stop working for the remainder of the shutdown, joining hundreds of thousands of others on furlough. According to its website, the NNSA’s job “is to ensure the United States maintains a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile through the application of unparalleled science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing.”

An Energy Department spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “approximately 1,400 NNSA federal employees will be furloughed as of Monday, October 20th and nearly 400 NNSA federal employees will continue to work to support the protection of property and the safety of human life. NNSA’s Office of Secure Transportation remains funded through October 27, 2025.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, the spokesperson said, “will be in Las Vegas, Nevada and at the National Nuclear Security Site Monday to further discuss the impacts of the shutdown on America’s nuclear deterrent.”

During past shutdowns federal employees that must keep working as well as those placed on furlough have received back pay. But Trump and administration officials have signaled they may try to reinterpret a 2019 law that authorized back pay for all federal workers once Congress passes a funding bill and the government reopens. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

Children at The Playing Field, a Madison child care center that participates in the federal Head Start program. (Courtesy of The Playing Field)

Federal judges in Rhode Island and Washington have blocked the Trump administration from excluding people without legal immigration status from a group of federal programs, including Head Start early childhood education.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Rhode Island halted a broad array of rules based on the new immigration restrictions from taking effect. Wisconsin was one of 21 states and the District of Columbia to join that lawsuit.  

Reuters reported that a White House statement said the administration expected a higher court to reverse the decision.

On Thursday, a federal judge in the state of Washington ordered the Trump administration to pause a requirement that Head Start early childhood education programs exclude families without legal immigration status. That ruling came in a case brought by Head Start groups in four states, including Wisconsin.

Head Start programs were included in a broader federal directive that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued July 10 listing federally funded “public benefits” that must exclude immigrants without legal status under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

Certain programs, such as Medicaid, have been required to verify lawful immigration status for participants. But since 1998, the federal government has considered a range of programs exempt that are generally open to all in a community, according to Reuters.

The July HHS order revoked the 1998 policy and closed the door to immigrants lacking legal status for Head Start along with a collection of programs providing mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training and other assistance.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a preliminary injunction that halted orders from HHS as well as the departments of Education, Labor and Justice based on the policy shift.

“The Government’s new policy, across the board, seems to be this: ‘Show me your papers,'” McElroy wrote in her order.

McElroy wrote that the administration acted “in a rushed way, without seeking comment from the public or interested parties,” likely violating the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez issued a temporary restraining order directing HHS not to apply the immigration restriction to Head Start programs.

Head Start programs have never been required to determine the immigration status of families in the program since it started nearly 60 years ago, according to Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association.

The Wisconsin association joined the lawsuit against the HHS order filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Head Start programs in the states of Washington, Illinois and Pennsylvania as well as advocacy groups in California and Oregon.

“This ruling affirms what we know to be both right within the law and right for communities,” Mauer told the Wisconsin Examiner on Friday. “Keeping eligible Head Start Families in the program is the best outcome for Wisconsin. Kids are safer and it keeps Wisconsin working.”

Martinez wrote in a 26-page opinion focused on the Head Start portion in the HHS order that harms the plaintiffs warned of “are not merely speculative.” Martinez was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed in 2004.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs told the court that a Wisconsin Head Start program reported at least four families withdrew after the federal directive was issued. Several Pennsylvania programs reported withdrawals, one reported that it expects to have to close and another said it will have to close one of its rooms due to a drop in enrollment.

The plaintiffs’ arguments “detail confusion on how to comply with the Directive, how to verify immigration status, who status is based on, whether non-profits are exempt, difficulties in recruiting and families obtaining proper documentation, and the families’ overall fear that reporting immigration status will result in a choice between family safety and a child’s education,” Martinez wrote.

The directive has unclear guidance and has had a “chilling effect” on programs as well as on families who have relied on Head Start, resulting “in the immediate harm of childhood education loss” and “leading to long-term harms in development,” he wrote. “It also results in parents losing childcare, risking missed work, unemployment, forced dropouts, and inability to pay life expenses and support families.”