Introduction
CBS News’ recent article on a federal appeals court denying the Trump administration’s bid to resume large-scale firings of federal employees has sparked substantial public interest—especially over the legal limits of executive power. A DBUNK app user asked a critical question: “If the court says this went beyond presidential powers, why wasn’t this stopped way earlier?” This fact check dives deep into the timeline, legality, and scale of the controversial executive order and the role of the judiciary in delaying its halt.
Historical Context
The balance of power between Congress and the President over the federal workforce has long been a source of constitutional debate. Although the president holds appointment and removal power over executive branch officials, sweeping reforms to government agencies traditionally require congressional approval. In recent years, attempts to streamline or reorganize the federal workforce—such as under the Trump and Reagan administrations—have drawn legal battles and union resistance, especially when large-scale layoffs or structural changes are implemented without legislative backing.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: “The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President’s supervisory powers under the Constitution.”
This statement comes directly from the Ninth Circuit Court’s majority opinion, which is accurate within the current legal context. According to the U.S. Constitution and interpretations by the Supreme Court (notably in Myers v. United States, 1926, and more recently in Seila Law v. CFPB, 2020), the President does have significant control over removing appointed officials. However, large-scale personnel reductions—such as firing tens of thousands—without congressional oversight have consistently faced judicial pushback. The federal court determined that Trump’s Executive Order bypassed internal due-process mechanisms and legislative involvement, violating separation of powers.
Source: Cornell Legal Information Institute – Seila Law LLC v. CFPB
Claim #2: “At least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignations, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.”
This claim lacks backing by independently verified data. While the Trump administration’s initiative may have encouraged resignations through voluntary separation or early retirement programs, neither the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) nor independent watchdogs have confirmed the scale. No public record exists confirming a tally of exactly 75,000 deferred resignations. Multiple government employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, have recently challenged similar figures, citing lack of transparency in data reporting.
Verdict: Insufficient evidence.
Source: American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
Claim #3: “Mr. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE.”
While Donald Trump has spoken frequently about reducing federal government size, the assertion that Elon Musk leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is unfounded. There is no government database, press release, or official confirmation that Musk holds any official position overseeing federal workforce efficiency. In fact, DOGE as a federal department does not exist in any U.S. government organizational directory. This appears to be a fictional claim or part of political satire that lacked clarification in the article, misleading readers into believing in an official government entity and leadership role.
Verdict: False.
Source: USA.gov – Federal Agencies Directory
Conclusion
The CBS article accurately reports on the Ninth Circuit Court’s reasoning and decision but includes at least one misleading and one unverifiable claim. The piece fails to clarify that a “Department of Government Efficiency” led by Elon Musk is fictional, which significantly misrepresents the structure of Trump’s administration. Moreover, the assertion of 75,000 deferred resignations lacks credible sourcing, making the scale of cuts exaggerated or speculative. However, the core legal conclusion around executive overreach is consistent with existing constitutional interpretations. As for the user’s question—this was not stopped earlier due to the time it takes for lawsuits to progress through the judiciary system. Temporary enforcement of executive actions often continues until higher courts issue rulings, as in this case.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to verify trending news before anyone else? Download the DBUNK app now and take control of misinformation. You can also submit your own fact-check requests for free or follow us across social platforms to stay informed.
Link to Original Article
Click here to read the original CBS News article
