A federal judge has hit the brakes on United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, expressing serious concerns about the administration’s intent to eliminate most of the agency’s workforce.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson voiced alarm over the initiative, warning that officials appeared to be defying court orders and threatening the very existence of the consumer watchdog.
The Trump administration recently initiated a move to terminate around 1,500 CFPB employees, leaving only about 200 staff members.
The drastic reduction, part of a broader “reduction in force” (RIF) strategy, has ignited legal challenges and fears that the bureau, established following the 2008 financial crisis to combat fraud and protect consumers, could be rendered nonfunctional.
Judge Jackson emphasized in her ruling that the planned layoffs could contradict prior legal decisions.
In her written statement, she warned that the administration seemed poised to “decimate the agency and render it unable to comply with its statutory duties.” If the RIF were to proceed unchecked, she cautioned, “there will be no agency standing” to address a lawsuit brought by the bureau’s employee union seeking to preserve jobs.
Her remarks mark a deepening rift between the judiciary and executive arms of government, highlighting tensions that have been a recurring theme throughout Trump’s tenure as he moved to overhaul federal institutions.
“There is reason to believe,” Jackson wrote, that officials in Trump’s camp “are thumbing their nose” at the judiciary, disregarding rulings that challenge their authority.
She has scheduled a hearing for April 28 to gather testimony from those involved in orchestrating the RIF.
“I’m willing to resolve it quickly, but I’m not going to let this RIF go forward until I have,” Jackson declared during a Friday court session.
Trump’s push to reshape government agencies under the banner of efficiency and cost-cutting has frequently run into judicial roadblocks.
The CFPB, in particular, has been a longstanding target for conservatives and business interests due to its aggressive regulatory role. Trump adviser Elon Musk had reportedly made it a focal point for the Department of Government Efficiency.
The CFPB’s chief legal officer, Mark Paoletta, stated in court that “the bureau’s activities have pushed well beyond the limits of the law,” accusing it of engaging in “intrusive and wasteful fishing expeditions.”
He added that the administration had crafted “a much more limited vision for enforcement and supervision activities” that relies on “a smaller, more efficient operation.”
Despite statutory mandates, the proposed staff reductions would assign just one employee to many legal responsibilities.
Under the restructuring plan, the enforcement team would shrink from 248 to 50, while the supervision department would see its ranks slashed from 487 to 50, alongside a relocation to the Southeastern United States.
In advance of Friday’s hearing, the National Treasury Employees Union submitted a sworn affidavit from a CFPB employee using the alias “Alex Doe.”
The statement described an intense, high-pressure atmosphere as the RIF team rushed to issue layoff notices. The employee claimed that Gavin Kliger, a DOGE affiliate overseeing the operation, kept staff awake for 36 consecutive hours to meet deadlines.
“He kept the team up for 36 hours straight to ensure that the notices would go out yesterday,” the employee stated. “Gavin was screaming at people he did not believe were working fast enough to ensure they could go out on this compressed timeline, calling them incompetent.”
CFPB Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez testified that he believed Kliger is an Office of Personnel Management staffer temporarily assigned to the bureau, rather than a direct DOGE employee.
Judge Jackson said she expects Kliger to attend the April 28 hearing and may call on him to testify. “We’re not going to decide what happened until we know what happened,” she told the courtroom.
The anonymous employee also noted that concerns were raised over the need for a “particularized assessment” prior to any workforce reduction, but Paoletta allegedly dismissed these concerns.
According to the employee, Paoletta insisted the team press forward, stating, “leadership would assume the risk.”
The White House has not issued a response regarding the judge’s ruling or the employee’s affidavit. Meanwhile, an OPM spokesperson, requesting anonymity, denied that Kliger led the RIF effort and described the allegations as an attempt to undermine DOGE’s reform efforts.
