Last Updated: October 11, 2026 Reading Time: 10 min

Three agencies ended their union contracts under the March 2025 executive order, and in under three weeks the courts produced one injunction, one appellate stay, one new lawsuit, and one labor-board dismissal. Press coverage ran the four together as a "court split." They are four different things, and what each one means depends on where you work. This tracker lays out, agency by agency, what a bargaining-unit employee at the VA, the Bureau of Prisons, the EPA and the Defense Department can rely on as of October 11, 2026, and what date to watch next. The next update follows the Bureau of Prisons contempt hearing on October 13.

Where Each Union Contract Stands Today

Agency and unit Latest document Contract status as of October 11 Grievances today Dues and official time Next date
BOP (AFGE Council of Prison Locals, about 30,000) Joint status report, October 9 (D. Conn. 3
)		 Ordered reinstated September 29 "for the remainder of the agreed-upon term" through May 28, 2029; BOP says it reinstated on paper October 2, then issued a new termination memo October 7. The unions call the re-termination void; BOP says the injunction does not bar it BOP says the contract's Article 31 procedure was open September 29 to October 7; the October 7 memo declares pending grievances "considered withdrawn" By BOP's own account, payroll dues deductions had not restarted before the October 7 re-termination; official time was granted "case by case," and the unions allege denials at several institutions Contempt hearing Tuesday, October 13, 2026, 4 p.m., Hartford
VA (AFGE National VA Council) First Circuit stay order, October 2 (Nos. 26-1321 and 26-1904) March 13 injunction to reinstate the contract for its agreed term still in place; the August 7 ruling that the contract auto-extended is stayed; whether it extended past August 8 is undecided The order's directive to keep processing pending grievances has been stayed since May 16, 2026 Not addressed in the October 2 order Appeal of the injunction pending; no argument or decision date found
EPA (AFGE Council 238, "over 8,000" per the complaint) Complaint, September 29 (D. Mass. 1
)		 Terminated August 8, 2025 (per the complaint); no court relief; case assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs, government served October 8 Internal administrative grievance only; EPA's termination FAQ said pending grievances were dismissed, per the complaint Not addressed in the filings reviewed No motion for an injunction on the docket entries we reviewed as of October 9
DoD (AFGE Local 2018, Twentynine Palms) FLRA decision, September 22 (74 FLRA No. 80) DoD is listed in the order, subject to its exceptions and authorized suspensions; see the DoD survival guide In this case the FLRA took the exceptions off hold because neither party was in other litigation and no injunction applied; commentators say the award is left in limbo See the DoD survival guide None in this case

The Order Behind All Four

Executive Order 14251, signed March 27, 2025, removed a list of agencies from the federal labor-relations statute on national-security grounds. The order lists VA, DOJ, EPA and DoD, subject to its local police/security-guard/firefighter exception, qualifying U.S. Marshals Service exception, and authorized VA and DoD suspensions. The local-office exception does not apply to BOP. An August 28, 2025 order, EO 14343, extended the exclusions to NASA, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the National Weather Service and others.

The statute the orders rely on, 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1), lets the President exclude an agency when intelligence, investigative or national-security work is a primary function and the labor law cannot be applied consistently with national security. Whether these orders meet that test is being litigated in AFGE v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit and NTEU v. Trump in the D.C. Circuit. None of the four decisions below reached it.

One more piece of background matters for the BOP case. After the Ninth Circuit stayed an injunction against the order in August 2025, OPM told agencies they "may choose to terminate, abrogate, or repudiate" their contracts with other unions. The BOP judge used that word, "may," to find that BOP's own decision to end its contract was reviewable.

BOP Union Contract: Reinstated on Paper, Re-Terminated a Week Later

On September 29, 2026, Judge Vernon Oliver of the District of Connecticut issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Bureau of Prisons to "immediately reinstate" its contract with the Council of Prison Locals, including local supplements and memoranda of understanding, for the rest of its term, which runs to May 28, 2029. He set a $1,000 bond; BOP had asked for $8,750,000. The judge did not rule on the executive order itself. He found BOP's stated reason for ending the contract in September 2025 was likely pretext, given a Director's message the same day calling the union "an obstacle to progress," and he rejected the government's argument that the union had to go to the FLRA first.

The next filings came after the October 6 and 7 news stories. In a sworn declaration filed October 8, BOP said it had reinstated the contract on paper on October 2, told wardens to comply and to consider official-time requests case by case, and reopened the Article 31 grievance procedure, but conceded that payroll dues deductions had not restarted; the agency was still "in the process of directing its payroll service provider to restart collecting union dues."

On October 6, the Council of Prison Locals asked Judge Oliver to hold BOP and Director Marshall in civil contempt, and to order a sworn compliance certification within 48 hours. The filing alleges official-time denials at FMC Lexington and USP Lee, and denials of representation and partnership requests at FMC Carswell, that USP McCreary's union office was still a club store, and that a manager at FCC Forrest City told an employee "There ain't no union." BOP disputes this. Judge Oliver ordered BOP to explain its compliance in writing by 11 a.m. October 8 and set an in-person contempt hearing for Tuesday, October 13, 2026, at 4 p.m. in Hartford.

On October 7, 2026, eight days after the injunction, Director Marshall rescinded the 2025 termination and issued a new memo terminating the Master Agreement "effective immediately," citing EO 14251 and national security. The new memo repeats the 2025 terms: no dues deductions, no official time, no union representation at formal discussions, and pending grievances "considered withdrawn." The memo keeps BOP's internal grievance procedure. BOP says the injunction does not bar a fresh termination; the unions say the re-termination is void. Judge Oliver has not ruled.

In a joint report filed October 9, the unions called the re-termination "void" and a "direct violation of the injunction"; BOP answered that the order "did not (and cannot) bar" a new termination and asked the judge to cancel the October 13 hearing. BOP treats the contract as terminated again as of October 7; the unions say the re-termination is void and the contract remains in force.

For a BOP employee, the practical state on October 11 is this. BOP says it granted official time case by case between September 29 and October 7, including 100 percent time for the national president and blocks of hours at USP Lee, FCI Tucson and others; the unions say requests were denied at FMC Lexington and USP Lee. Both accounts are sworn and the court has not resolved them. On office space, BOP says wardens were told to provide private meeting space and to find permanent alternatives, with at least one institution having done so; the unions say offices had not been returned. BOP's declarant says he is not aware of any grievance filed under Article 31 in those eight days, and that it had begun rescheduling arbitrations that had been on hold. Whether BOP may end all of that again while the injunction stands is what the court will hear October 13.

VA: The Injunction Stands, the Extension Is Undecided

The VA case is older and more layered. On March 13, 2026, Judge Melissa DuBose in Rhode Island ordered VA to reinstate the AFGE Master Agreement, with its local supplements, for the rest of its agreed term. On May 16 the First Circuit partly stayed that order: the directive to comply "in both form and substance" and the directive to keep processing pending grievances were paused, while the duty to reinstate itself was not. Since May 16 the court order has not required VA to keep processing pending grievances. That part is stayed.

The contract's own term clause is the live dispute. It extends the agreement automatically if renegotiation is in progress when the term ends, and the initial term ended August 8, 2026. On August 7 Judge DuBose held in a second enforcement order that the contract had extended. On October 2, a First Circuit panel of Chief Judge Barron and Judges Aframe and Dunlap stayed that order, because the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to decide the extension question while the injunction was on appeal. The panel did not decide whether the contract was extended, and it said it was expressing "no view" on what the stay means for the pending appeal of the March 13 injunction.

So "VA wins" is accurate only for the stay of the August 7 order and nothing more; the extension question itself is undecided. No court has finally decided whether the VA contract is still alive past August 8. The original injunction was not lifted, its appeal is still pending, and the court declined to say what the stay means for it. The First Circuit's stay order hit the Rhode Island docket October 5, and on October 8 the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Rebecca Aitchison for referred matters. Judge DuBose still presides. No other substantive entry appeared through October 9, and VA has not publicly said what it will do.

For a VA employee: the negotiated grievance procedure is still in the contract, but the court order does not require VA to process pending grievances. File on time and in writing, keep copies, and read the VA post for the earlier rulings.

EPA: A Complaint, Not a Ruling

EPA's union has only just sued. AFGE Local 3428 and Council 238 filed a complaint on September 29, 2026 in the District of Massachusetts, and no judge has ruled. The complaint alleges EPA ended a contract that was to run through June 30, 2028 on August 8, 2025, effective immediately, and that EPA's termination FAQ told employees pending grievances were dismissed and arbitrators' decisions would be treated as non-binding. The union asks the court to vacate the termination and permanently block it. According to the complaint, the EPA contract had its own reduction-in-force protections; without it, only the statutory and OPM RIF rules apply.

The EPA case is before Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The government was served October 8, 2026; as of October 9 no motion for a preliminary injunction appeared on the docket entries we reviewed, so nothing has changed yet for EPA employees. The FedWeek headline that counted EPA among the "split" rulings overstates it.

DoD: What the FLRA Decided, and Did Not

On September 22, 2026, in a Marine Corps case from Twentynine Palms, the FLRA dismissed the agency's appeal of an arbitrator's award for lack of jurisdiction, applying the executive order as written: DoD is excluded from the statute. The vote was 2 to 1; Member Anne Wagner would have kept the case on hold until the litigation over the exclusion orders ends. The FLRA took this one case off hold because the union was not in court and no injunction covered it. Cases where the parties are litigating may stay on hold.

This is an administrative decision in one DoD case. It involves no VA, BOP or EPA unit, and it is not a court ruling. Commentators note the award was left in limbo, with no clear way to enforce it. DoD employees should read the DoD contract termination survival guide for the statutory baseline that applies without a contract.

What the Rulings Mean for Your Paycheck and Your Grievance

Dues. In agencies still covered by the statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7115 requires an agency to honor a written dues assignment. For an excluded agency, whether deductions come back depends on the restored contract, not on the statute. At BOP, by the agency's own account, payroll deductions had not restarted before the October 7 re-termination. Check your Leave and Earnings Statement and your local before assuming anything.

Official time and representation. The BOP order said the agency "shall be governed by the terms" of the contract, which should bring back negotiated official time and representation rights. BOP's October 7 memo ends them again, and the court has not said which document controls.

RIF rules. A negotiated RIF article falls away with a terminated contract. The statutory and OPM rules remain, and the severance calculator estimates severance from your salary, years of service and age if a reduction in force ends in separation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the BOP union contract back?

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on September 29, 2026 ordering BOP to "immediately reinstate" it, including local supplements and MOUs, through May 28, 2029. BOP says it reinstated the contract on paper October 2, then on October 7 issued a new memo terminating it "effective immediately." The unions have moved for contempt and call the re-termination void; the hearing is October 13, and the judge has not ruled.

Did the judge strike down the executive order?

No. The BOP ruling "does not concern the validity of EO 14,251." The judge found BOP's reason for ending the contract in 2025 was likely pretextual and that the decision was reviewable because OPM's guidance said agencies "may choose" to end contracts with other unions.

Will union dues come out of my BOP paycheck again?

Not yet, by BOP's own account. In its October 8 filing BOP said payroll dues deductions had not restarted and it was "in the process of directing its payroll service provider." The October 7 memo ends deductions again. Check your Leave and Earnings Statement and your local.

Did VA win the right to end its contract?

No. On October 2 the First Circuit paused the ruling that the contract auto-extended past August 8, but it left the March 13 injunction in place and the extension question undecided. No court has finally decided whether the VA contract is still alive past August 8.

Can I still file a grievance at VA?

The negotiated procedure is still in the contract, but since May 16, 2026 the court order has not required VA to keep processing pending grievances. File on time, in writing, and keep copies.

Did a court rule for EPA employees?

No. The union filed suit on September 29, 2026, and no judge has ruled. The case is before Judge Allison D. Burroughs; the government was served October 8, and no motion for an injunction appeared on the docket entries we reviewed as of October 9.

What did the FLRA decide?

In a DoD case it dismissed management's appeal of an arbitration award for lack of jurisdiction, saying the executive order excludes DoD. It took the case off hold because neither party was in other litigation and no injunction applied. It is an administrative decision, not a court ruling, and it involves no VA, BOP or EPA unit.

Which agencies does this matter for?

EO 14251 lists VA, DOJ, EPA and DoD, among others, subject to its local police/security-guard/firefighter exception, a qualifying U.S. Marshals Service exception, and authorized VA and DoD suspensions. The local-office exception does not apply to BOP. EO 14343, signed August 28, 2025, added NASA, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the National Weather Service and others.

What happens to RIF rules if my contract stays terminated?

Negotiated RIF articles fall away and only the statutory and OPM rules remain. EPA's contract had such an article, according to the union's complaint. The DoD survival guide covers the baseline rules.

Sources