The number of Americans missing work for National Guard deployments or other military or civic duty is at a 19-year high, adding disruption to a labor market that’s already under strain.
Between January and August, workers reported 90,000 instances of people missing at least a week of work because of military deployments, jury duty or other civil service, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is more than double the number of similar absences in the same eight-month period last year, and the highest level since 2006, when President George W. Bush deployed the National Guard to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Southwest U.S. border in large numbers.
The absences are due at least in part to a growing military presence in American cities. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has sent thousands of National Guard service members — civilians, many with full-time jobs — to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. He has suggested expansions of those efforts to at least seven more cities, including Chicago, New York, Baltimore and New Orleans, and called for the creation of a new military unit that can quickly mobilize anywhere in the country.
The ramp-up is happening at a vulnerable time for the labor market. Job openings have dropped in recent months, layoffs are picking up and businesses are slow to hire. Companies added just 22,000 new jobs in August, well below economists’ expectations, while the unemployment rate edged up to 4.3 percent.
Military-related absences so far make up just a sliver of overall workplace disruptions. In August, for example, more than twice as many people reported missing work because of labor disputes, and seven times as many said they were out because of bad weather. Economists also caution that the data are calculated using a small subset of responses, which can distort the numbers. Even so, with the president considering expanding National Guard presence to other parts of the country, they warn the burden on workers and employers could deepen.
“Uncertainty over whether you or your employees might be called to National Guard duty and how long that deployment might last is just adding to the chaos” for families and businesses, said Michael Makowsky, an economist at Clemson University whose work focuses on law enforcement. “Anything that makes it harder to make a plan is generally bad for the economy.”
The White House says its efforts are improving the U.S. economy by combating crime and unrest in major cities.
The “President has rightfully deployed the National Guard to cities like Los Angeles, which was ravaged by violent riots … and Washington, DC, while strengthening small businesses and revitalizing our economy,” spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement. “These deployments saved small businesses from further destruction and preserved great American jobs.”
Although military-related work absences tend to fluctuate throughout the year, spiking during hurricane season, for example, they have been consistently higher than in 2024 almost every month this year.
“You can see an elevation in the data, that’s for darn sure,” said William Beach, who headed the BLS during Trump’s first term and is now a senior fellow at the Economic Policy Innovation Center. “It’s more than likely because of a military influence — an increase in reserve duty or an increase in military service.”
The data come from the Current Population Survey, a monthly federal survey that asks Americans whether they missed work in a given week each month, and why. Civil or military duty-related absences include jury duty, Armed Forces reserve duty, National Guard duty or “a similar obligation,” according to the BLS.
National Guard recruitment has recently picked up after years of decline. In an executive order last month, Trump called for the creation of an online job portal to encourage more people to apply to join federal law enforcement efforts, saying they are needed in “cities where public safety and order has been lost.”
Deployment orders are expected to accelerate as the president leans on the National Guard to crack down on what he calls rampant crime in U.S. cities. Although a federal judge last week ruled that the Trump administration’s use of troops to carry out domestic law enforcement in Los Angeles was illegal, he did not require that the administration withdraw the 300 service members who are still in the city.
The Trump administration has appealed that ruling and suggested that it will not hamper plans to send troops to other cities. The White House is also expected to extend the National Guard’s deployment in D.C. — where it has faced criticism for relying on troops for landscaping and trash removal — from mid-September to Dec. 31.
For those who are being deployed, assignments require stepping away from duties at their day jobs. Despite federal protections, some National Guard members say they have trouble finding or keeping work, especially in a labor market weighed down by uncertainty.
“Companies say they’re veteran-friendly until it’s time for you to deploy or there’s a natural disaster, and they realize your time out of the office is going to cost them productivity or they’re going to have to hire someone to cover for you,” said Charlie Elison, a noncommissioned officer in the Army National Guard who also works a day job as an executive director for the city of Philadelphia.
Elison, who until earlier this year worked for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said his career options have been “very limited” because of growing military responsibilities. He spends about 90 days a year out of the office in uniform, and he usually does a year-long deployment overseas every four years. Adding crime-related domestic duties to that list, he said, could add new challenges for troops and employers.
“There’s this unfunded mandate across our country, where Guard and reserve members are asked to do more and more every year,” he said. “And there’s this unfunded requirement for our civilian employers to shoulder that burden.”
Tag Archives: President George W. Bush
Reuters: Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit
The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies – such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University – has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters.
Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump’s election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.
The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list.
Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump’s administration.
“Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system,” said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump’s second term. “How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?”
Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court. A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump’s actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures.
“Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President’s policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement.
The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures.
Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions.
All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation.
A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an “unprecedented number of lawsuits” against Trump’s agenda.
“The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section.
Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual.
Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump’s first term and Joe Biden’s administration.
Heading for the Exit
The exits include at least 10 of the section’s 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.
A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details.
In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division.
But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda.
The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University.
“We’ve never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs,” said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush.
“The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning.”
The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves.
Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number.
The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit.
“They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout,” said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration’s policies.
People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration’s attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide.
Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies.
Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump’s order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday.
Facing Pressure
Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power.
The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court.
Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said.
The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases.
Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump’s agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not “substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.”
Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired.
Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration’s position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador.
The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases.
Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts.
Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter.
A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.
Not everybody wants to continue hanging out with a bunch of losers!
Alternet: Trump just broke the law — again
After the United States bombed Iran’s three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror”.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying:
The president authorised a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defenze of our troops and our ally Israel.
Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another?
I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not.
Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state:
・the UN Security Council authorizes force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7
・the right of self defense when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51.
On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorization for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The security council has long been concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorized the use of military force.
With regard to self defence, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there’s no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US.
Associated Press: Vance blames California Dems for violent immigration protests and calls Sen. Alex Padilla ‘Jose’
Vice President JD Vance on Friday accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of encouraging violent immigration protests as he used his appearance in Los Angeles to rebut criticism from state and local officials that the Trump administration fueled the unrest by sending in federal officers.
Sending in masked thugs to rough people up and kidnap Hispanics off the streets and sidewalks is exactly what the problem is. If JD Dunce is too much of an idiot to understand that, c’est la vie. We can’t fix stupid! And the demonstrations will continue until ICE either cleans up their act or is put back in their kennels.
Vance also referred to U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the state’s first Latino senator, as “Jose Padilla,” a week after the Democrat was forcibly taken to the ground by officers and handcuffed after speaking out during a Los Angeles news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on immigration raids.
JD Dunce is a pathetic racist pig. He served in the Senate with Sen. Padilla and knows full well what his actual name is.
From Los Angeles to Washington, Trump leans in as commander in chief
On one coast, military forces are arriving by the thousands to defend federal buildings and agents. On the other, they’re readying a celebration of American military might.
President Donald Trump loves displays of military force. He’s parading two very different kinds this week.
On one coast, military forces are arriving by the thousands to defend federal buildings and agents, facing off with civilians protesting the president’s immigration agenda. On the other, they’re readying a celebration of American military might in a parade held on the Army’s — and Trump’s — birthday.
…
Trump has wanted to hold a military parade in Washington since he accompanied French President Emmanuel Macron to a 2017 Bastille Day parade, where troops marched down the Champs-Élysées while fighter jets flew overhead, leaving trails of red, white, and blue smoke behind them. Trump later called it “one of the greatest parades I’ve ever seen,” but aides advised him against throwing a similar affair.
Trump seems to forget that Bastille Day largely marked the end of French royalty. King Donald, too, shall pass.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/11/trump-military-parade-protests-00398716
Associated Press: The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Alternet: Trump-capitulating law firms keep losing in a bad deal that is becoming worse by the day | Opinion
Trump Loses Again
In a 52-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates—a 2001 appointee of President George W. Bush—rejected the Justice Department’s effort to defend Trump’s executive order targeting Jenner & Block. Trump’s own words doomed it:
Like the others in the series, this order—which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block—makes no bones about why it chose its target: It picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. (Jenner & Block v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. Civil Action No. 25-916 (JDB) p. 1)
The court left no doubt that Trump had violated the Constitution:
Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” (Id.; citations omitted.)
Describing how Trump’s actions undermine democracy, Judge Bates previewed the fate awaiting similar orders:
This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full. (Id.; emphasis supplied.)
The firms that challenged Trump remain undefeated in the courtroom.
Law & Crime: ‘Threatens to destroy’: Trump admin sued over move to ‘unleash’ commercial fishing in protected marine areas
Conservation advocacy organizations have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over an executive order cutting protections for marine ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean.
The Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument was established in 2009 by then-President George W. Bush in his final days in office, and former President Barack Obama expanded the monument’s protections five years later. However, an April proclamation by President Donald Trump rolled back the 2014 safeguards in an effort to “unleash” United States commercial fishing in the central Pacific Ocean.
The Conservation Council for Hawaii, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Kapaʻa, an “unincorporated association of Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners,” are seeking to stop the president from having his way.

Associated Press: Trump’s plan to accept free Air Force One replacement from Qatar raises ethical and security worries
For President Donald Trump, accepting a free Air Force One replacement from Qatar is a no-brainer.
“I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer,” the Republican told reporters on Monday. “I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’”
Critics of the plan worry that the move threatens to turn a global symbol of American power into an airborne collection of ethical, legal, security and counterintelligence concerns.
…
But security is the primary concern when it comes to presidential travel. The current Air Force One planes were built from scratch near the end of the Cold War. They are hardened against the effects of a nuclear blast and include a range of security features, such as anti-missile countermeasures and an onboard operating room. They are also equipped with air-to-air refueling capabilities for contingencies, though it has never been utilized with a president on board.
A former U.S. official briefed on the Air Force One replacement project said that while it would be possible to add some features to the Qatari jet, there was no way to add the full suite of capabilities to the plane on a tight timetable.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-qatar-air-force-one-2ef13d87b71185bde547abe6840b098c
Washington Examiner: Maine settles with Trump administration in funding freeze lawsuit
The State of Maine dropped its lawsuit against the Trump administration on Friday after reaching a settlement agreement, which comes as the two parties have been feuding over transgender policies.
Maine agreed to withdraw its lawsuit in exchange for the Department of Agriculture vowing not to freeze the millions of dollars it directs to the state’s Department of Education unlawfully, according to court documents.
…
Judge John Woodcock, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, previously ruled in Maine’s favor by granting a restraining order. He said the USDA’s actions were “contrary to law, for multiple reasons,” including because Secretary Brooke Rollins did not follow legal procedures required to stop the funding.
Rollins agreed on Friday to “refrain from freezing, terminating, or otherwise interfering with the state of Maine’s access” to USDA funds, “based on alleged violations of Title IX without first following all legally required procedures,” the agreement read.
More here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-maine-funding-freeze