The Department of Veterans Affairs has re-terminated a labor contract with its largest union — a move that a federal judge called “blatant disrespect” for her order to restore it.
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the VA to restore its collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Government Employees’ National VA Council while the case continues. That contract covers more than 300,000 VA employees.
U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose determined that VA Secretary Doug Collins “favored some unions over others,” when the VA implemented a March 2025 executive order eliminating collective bargaining at more than 20 agencies — including the VA.
The VA restored its master collective bargaining agreement with AFGE/NVAC days after the court’s preliminary injunction. But court filings show the department continued to deny benefits and workplace protections outlined in the contract to covered employees.
Collins told AFGE leadership in a memo Thursday that even with the court’s preliminary injunction in place, the department must still comply with the underlying executive order.
Attorneys representing AFGE told the court that other agencies have attempted similar end-runs around court orders.
Last December, the Department of Homeland Security sought to terminate AFGE’s collective bargaining agreement covering Transportation Security Administration employees, even though a federal judge had earlier in 2025 blocked DHS from dissolving the labor contract.
In January, a federal judge in Washington State ruled that DHS violated an earlier preliminary injunction keeping the AFGE-TSA collective bargaining agreement in place, and granted an emergency motion to prohibit TSA from eliminating the labor agreement.
The 1978 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) grants most federal employees the right to collectively bargain, but exempts agencies that work in national security. President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order greatly expanded the portfolio of agencies with national security missions. He signed a second executive order last August, adding more agencies to the collective-bargaining exemption.
Collins wrote in his memo to AFGE that even with the court’s preliminary injunction in place, the VA is still excluded from FSLMRS coverage under the executive order, and that the collective bargaining agreement “cannot operate without FSLMRS.”
“The CBA was drafted with the expectation it would operate and be enforced under the provisions of the FSLMRS. Key provisions of the CBA are incoherent apart from that expectation,” he wrote.
“VA is accordingly terminating this CBA on national security grounds,” Collins added.
Collins wrote in his memo to AFGE that Trump has determined the VA “has a primary function of intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.” In times of war, the VA is designed by law as a backstop health care provider for military service members.
“The president is aware of both the important national security role VA performs and how collective bargaining affects VA’s ability to perform that mission,” he wrote.
AFGE filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction on March 20, arguing that hundreds of thousands of VA employees “are irreparably harmed each day that defendants fail to comply with the preliminary injunction.”
Tyler Becker, a Justice Department attorney representing the VA, told the court on Friday that by re-terminating the contract, AFGE’s motion to enforce the court’s preliminary injunction was “moot.”
“The plaintiffs haven’t put before the court anything at this point that would suggest that they are challenging the re-terminate or anything that would allow the court to enjoin the re-termination,” Becker said.
DuBose said that the VA’s disregard of her preliminary injunction “throws everything that the court attempted to do to clarify into chaos.”
“For you to suggest that all of the work that was done prior to the re-termination is kind of mooted out, and we kind of disregard, is really a blatant disrespect for not just this court’s order, but for the rule of law,” she said.
DuBose is giving the VA until the close of business on Tuesday, March 31, to explain why she shouldn’t deem the re-termination of the collective bargaining agreement as being in contempt of the court’s order.
The VA, in a motion for clarification filed March 20, questioned whether the judge’s preliminary injunction would allow the department to re-terminate the collective bargaining agreement “for any reason before its August 8, 2026 expiration.”
DuBose clarified that the VA could only re-terminate the contract “for lawful reasons.”
“There is a process that the defendant certainly could follow to seek redress from either a higher court to stay this court’s preliminary order, to seek a rehearing because of changed circumstances. None of that happened here,” she said.
Travis Silva, an attorney representing AFGE, told the court that there’s “no doubt that the defendants are openly defying the court’s preliminary injunction.”
“They didn’t appeal, they didn’t move for a stay. They know how to do those things. They haven’t done them for whatever tactical reason, and so they need to comply,” Silva said.
The Justice Department notified the court on Friday afternoon that it has appealed its case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The VA was one of the first departments to terminate union contracts following the March 2025 executive order.
The Office of Personnel Management initially told agencies to hold off on terminating labor contracts with unions while legal challenges were still pending. But OPM reversed course last month, when it advised agencies to proceed with either amending or fully canceling their collective bargaining agreements.
In granting her preliminary injunction, DuBose wrote that she did not determine whether the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it issued its executive orders rolling back collective bargaining rights.
The legality of the executive order is still under review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that the Trump administration’s termination of collective bargaining agreements was not retaliatory, and that the White House would have issued these executive orders even if the plaintiff unions hadn’t spoken out against its policies or taken legal action.
She said that final judgment in any of the cases directly challenging the legality of the executive orders “could be years away,” and that AFGE/NVAC “need not wait to adjudicate the [VA] secretary’s distinct, discrete action” of terminating its collective bargaining agreement.
AFGE/NVAC Mary Jean Burke said in a statement that the union “will not rest until every VA facility in this country is honoring our union contract.”
“The judge’s consideration of contempt for the VA’s attempt to avoid compliance and disregard the court’s order further demonstrates how little this administration cares for the frontline workers serving and protecting our veterans,” Burke said.
If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email jheckman@federalnewsnetwork.com, or reach out on Signal at jheckman.29
Copyright
© 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
