A federal judge, Anthony J. Trenga, ruled that CIA director John Ratcliffe can fire intelligence officers involved in diversity issues, aligning with President Trump’s executive order against workforce diversity efforts. Despite the officers’ claims of unjust treatment, the judge stated that the law grants Ratcliffe broad authority to terminate employees without court review. The CIA has reportedly targeted up to 51 officers for dismissal. The affected officers, some in court during the ruling, expressed disappointment, arguing they had done nothing wrong. Their attorney urged Ratcliffe to reconsider and allow them to pursue other positions within the agency.
On Thursday, a federal district judge granted C.I.A. director John Ratcliffe the authority to terminate intelligence officers involved in diversity initiatives, a decision that may pave the way for the dismissal of additional personnel at the agency.
Judge Anthony J. Trenga stated from the bench that his ruling would have been different if it were based on fundamental fairness, but he noted that current laws and regulations provided Mr. Ratcliffe with the power to terminate employees at his discretion, without judicial oversight.
This ruling came as the agency sought to align with President Trump’s executive order that prohibits efforts aimed at diversifying the federal workforce.
U.S. officials have not indicated how many intelligence personnel will be removed as a result of this policy shift. According to the officers’ attorneys, the agency has already initiated termination procedures for up to 51 individuals. Furthermore, the agency is contemplating actions against some probationary staff and has urged certain midcareer employees to think about resigning.
In the courtroom, ten intelligence officers who filed a lawsuit to prevent their firings were present when the judge rejected their request for a temporary restraining order. Their expressions reflected disappointment as the judge determined their case was unlikely to succeed and declined to issue the restraining order.
Kevin Carroll, the attorney for the plaintiffs, contended during court proceedings that his clients and other intended targets of termination had not committed any wrongdoing and had even received offers for alternative positions within the C.I.A. He noted that one data scientist had received nine different job offers from the agency.
None of the officers are experts in recruitment or diversity; many had been directed to take on roles in recruitment, which had been a priority under former C.I.A. director William J. Burns.
It remains unclear when the C.I.A. will resume discussions with the diversity officers regarding their options of resignation or termination.
Following the ruling, the intelligence officers congregated in the lobby outside the courtroom, where they expressed their dissatisfaction with the assistant U.S. attorney who had defended the argument that Mr. Ratcliffe could dismiss them without any recourse to appeal or review.
According to their attorneys, the C.I.A. has prohibited the officers from speaking with reporters or disclosing their identities.
During the hearing, Judge Trenga recommended that Mr. Ratcliffe assess each case individually and reconsider the decisions to terminate. Several officers appeared doubtful about this suggestion.
Mr. Carroll urged Mr. Ratcliffe to heed the judge’s advice and allow his clients to pursue the other opportunities available to them within the agency.
“In light of the judge’s comments, he should permit them to apply for other roles,” Mr. Carroll stated. “It would be both wise and just for the agency to let its employees explore other job options.”
In a statement released earlier in the day, the officers expressed their desire to continue serving their country and claimed they had been placed on leave without proper justification.
“We did not embark on this legal battle for attention or gain,” the officers stated. “We chose to fight because we wish to return to safeguarding our great nation against its adversaries.”
The regulation invoked by Mr. Ratcliffe for the terminations provides no right to appeal, which the officers argued is inherently unjust.
“The government to which we have dedicated over 285 years of collective service now offers us no due process, dignity, or legitimate justification for our dismissal,” their statement added.
Seamus Hughes contributed research.