When President Donald Trump nominated new members to the National Labor Relations Board and signed labor policy orders affecting federal collective bargaining, he did more than shuffle names on a government letterhead. He signaled a major change in how Washington would approach unions, workplace rules, employer authority, federal labor relations, and the legal machinery behind American labor law.
The National Labor Relations Board, better known as the NLRB, is not exactly dinner-party material unless your guests are employment lawyers, union organizers, or people who read Federal Register notices for fun. Still, the agency has enormous influence. It decides how workers organize, how employers respond to union campaigns, what counts as an unfair labor practice, and how quickly labor disputes move through the system. In other words, the NLRB may look like a sleepy federal board, but when it wakes up, HR departments reach for coffee and union lawyers reach for case law.
Trump’s nominations of Scott Mayer and James Murphy to the NLRB, along with the confirmation of Crystal Carey as general counsel, reopened the door to a functioning Republican-led labor board after months of paralysis. At the same time, executive actions on federal labor-management relations narrowed collective bargaining rights across wide sections of the federal workforce, especially in agencies tied to national security, intelligence, border security, public safety, and critical infrastructure.
This article explains what happened, why it matters, how employers and unions are likely to respond, and what ordinary workers should understand about the shift. The goal is not to throw legal confetti into the air, but to translate a complicated labor-policy moment into plain English.
Why the NLRB Matters in American Labor Policy
The NLRB enforces the National Labor Relations Act, the landmark 1935 law that protects most private-sector workers’ rights to organize, bargain collectively, and act together over workplace conditions. The agency supervises union elections, investigates unfair labor practice charges, and issues decisions that shape labor law nationwide.
That means NLRB membership matters. A Democratic-majority board typically interprets labor protections more broadly, often favoring union access, worker speech, stronger remedies, and stricter limits on employer conduct. A Republican-majority board generally gives employers more flexibility, narrows certain union-friendly doctrines, and is more cautious about expanding labor rights through agency decisions rather than Congress.
The NLRB has five board seats, but it needs at least three members to issue major decisions. Without a quorum, the agency can still process some cases through regional offices, but the Board itself cannot fully perform its decision-making role. That is like having a courtroom with a judge, a clerk, and a stack of filesbut no authority to issue final rulings. The lights are on, but the machinery runs in low gear.
Trump’s NLRB Nominations: Who Was Picked?
In July 2025, President Trump sent two NLRB nominations to the Senate: Scott Mayer of Pennsylvania and James Murphy of Maryland. Mayer was nominated for a term expiring December 16, 2029, while Murphy was nominated for a term expiring December 16, 2027. Both were later confirmed by the Senate in December 2025, restoring the Board’s quorum and giving Republicans a working majority.
Scott Mayer
Scott Mayer came to the NLRB with a background in management-side labor law, including work as chief labor counsel at Boeing. That kind of experience matters because NLRB members do not arrive as blank slates. They bring professional histories, legal philosophies, and instincts about how much authority employers should have when responding to union activity.
For employers, Mayer’s nomination was widely seen as a sign that the Board could revisit Biden-era labor decisions that had expanded union leverage. For unions, it raised concerns that hard-won precedents on organizing, workplace rules, and remedies could be narrowed or reversed.
James Murphy
James Murphy had long experience inside the NLRB, including work as a career agency attorney. His nomination gave the new Board someone deeply familiar with NLRB procedure, internal case flow, and the technical architecture of labor law. That may sound less dramatic than a courtroom speech, but in administrative law, procedure is power. The person who understands the machine often knows which lever changes the outcome.
Murphy’s confirmation helped end a long period in which the NLRB lacked the membership necessary to issue major decisions. Employers, unions, and workers had all been waiting for clarity. Nobody loves uncertaintyexcept maybe consultants, because uncertainty keeps the invoice printer warm.
The Role of NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey
The NLRB general counsel is not a board member, but the position is extremely influential. The general counsel controls the agency’s prosecutorial agenda, decides which cases to pursue, and sends signals to regional offices about enforcement priorities. In practical terms, the general counsel can determine whether the NLRB acts like an aggressive watchdog, a careful referee, or a cautious traffic cop waving cases away from litigation.
Crystal Carey was nominated by Trump in March 2025, confirmed by the Senate in December 2025, and sworn in in January 2026. Her arrival marked another major change in direction after the Biden-era tenure of Jennifer Abruzzo, who had pushed an ambitious pro-worker and pro-union enforcement agenda.
Under the new leadership, observers expected a more employer-friendly approach. That does not mean every employer automatically wins or every union automatically loses. Labor law is still case-specific. But priorities matter. The cases the general counsel chooses, the theories the agency advances, and the remedies it seeks can reshape the real-world balance between labor and management.
From Paralysis to Policy Shift
The NLRB spent much of 2025 in a strange legal and operational limbo. Trump removed Democratic Board member Gwynne Wilcox, a move that led to litigation over presidential power and the independence of federal agencies. The firing left the Board without a quorum, limiting its ability to issue decisions. The legal battle reached the Supreme Court on an emergency basis, and broader questions about independent agency protections remained part of the national debate.
For businesses and unions, the practical result was simple: many big labor-law questions were frozen. Biden-era precedents stayed on the books because the Board could not easily replace them, but new direction was delayed because Trump’s nominees had not yet been confirmed. The labor-law world was stuck in a waiting room with old magazines.
Once Mayer and Murphy were confirmed, the Board regained the power to act. That raised expectations of major changes in 2026, especially on issues such as union election procedures, employer speech during organizing campaigns, workplace handbook rules, independent contractor standards, and remedies for unfair labor practices.
Labor Policy Orders Target Federal Collective Bargaining
While the NLRB nominations affected private-sector labor law, Trump’s executive orders directly changed federal labor-management policy. The most important actions involved collective bargaining agreements and national-security exclusions from federal labor relations programs.
Limiting “Lame-Duck” Collective Bargaining Agreements
On January 31, 2025, Trump issued a memorandum targeting collective bargaining agreements finalized in the final 30 days before a presidential transition. The order argued that last-minute agreements could improperly bind a new administration to policies negotiated by the outgoing administration. One example cited involved telework provisions negotiated shortly before Trump returned to office.
The policy directed agencies not to approve certain new or materially changed collective bargaining agreements made during that final transition window. The administration framed the move as a defense of presidential management authority. Federal unions viewed it differently, arguing that it weakened negotiated protections and treated ordinary workers as political obstacles.
The practical issue was remote work, workplace flexibility, and agency control. After the pandemic, telework became one of the hottest issues in federal employment. To some workers, it was modern efficiency. To critics, it was bureaucratic drift in sweatpants. The January order made clear that the new administration wanted tighter control over federal workplace policy.
Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs
On March 27, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14251, titled “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.” The order used national-security authority to exclude many agencies and subdivisions from federal collective bargaining coverage. It applied to departments and agencies connected to defense, foreign affairs, border security, cybersecurity, public safety, energy, health preparedness, and related missions.
The order affected major parts of the federal government, including the Departments of State, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Justice, Treasury, Energy, and Homeland Security, along with specific components of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and other agencies. The administration argued that collective bargaining could interfere with national security requirements and mission flexibility.
Labor organizations called the order a sweeping attack on federal unions. The American Federation of Government Employees and other unions argued that many affected employees were not intelligence operatives or battlefield commanders, but nurses, inspectors, support staff, scientists, analysts, and administrative workers whose bargaining rights had long covered basic workplace conditions.
Further Exclusions in August 2025
In August 2025, Trump issued another order expanding exclusions from the federal labor-management relations program. This order added more entities and subdivisions, including NASA, the United States Agency for Global Media, parts of the Commerce Department, parts of the Bureau of Reclamation, and certain weather, satellite, trade, patent, and hydropower functions.
The national-security explanation remained central. The administration argued that certain agencies needed maximum flexibility because their work involved intelligence, investigative, technological, infrastructure, or national-security functions. Critics responded that the definition of national security was being stretched so far it could cover almost anything with a password, a badge, or a government email account.
What This Means for Employers
For private-sector employers, the restored NLRB quorum means 2026 could bring a wave of precedent changes. Employers should watch several areas closely.
Union Recognition and Election Rules
The Biden-era NLRB made it easier in some circumstances for unions to obtain bargaining orders when employers committed unfair labor practices during organizing campaigns. A Trump-led Board may narrow those rules and place renewed emphasis on secret-ballot elections as the preferred method for determining employee support.
Captive-Audience Meetings
Mandatory employer meetings about unionization, often called captive-audience meetings, were restricted under the Biden-era Board. A Republican-majority NLRB may revisit that approach and give employers more room to communicate their views during organizing drives, provided they do not threaten, interrogate, promise benefits, or spy on workers.
Workplace Handbook Policies
Rules on social media, confidentiality, civility, investigations, and workplace conduct often trigger NLRB scrutiny. Under a more employer-friendly Board, companies may gain more flexibility to maintain broad workplace policies, as long as those policies do not clearly chill protected concerted activity.
Severance Agreements and Non-Disparagement Clauses
The Biden-era Board took a strict view of severance provisions that limited workers’ ability to discuss workplace issues. A Trump Board may allow more traditional confidentiality and non-disparagement language, although employers should still avoid drafting clauses so broad they appear to gag employees from discussing labor rights.
What This Means for Unions and Workers
For unions, the shift means organizing campaigns may become more difficult, especially if the Board rolls back rules that punished employer misconduct with stronger remedies. Union strategists will need to prepare for longer campaigns, more employer messaging, and greater pressure to document unfair labor practices quickly and thoroughly.
Workers filing charges may also face a more demanding intake environment. Reports and legal analyses in 2026 noted concerns that unfair labor practice charges were being dismissed at higher rates than during the previous administration. The NLRB has said its updated procedures do not impose new substantive burdens beyond existing rules, but unions and worker advocates argue that tight evidence deadlines can disadvantage employees who lack legal support.
The lesson for workers is practical: documentation matters. Save emails. Write down dates. Keep names, job titles, witness details, and screenshots. Labor law is not a vibes-based discipline. “My boss was weird about the union” is a starting point. “On March 4 at 2:15 p.m., my supervisor said X in front of Y and Z” is evidence.
The Legal Fight Over Presidential Power
Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox raised a constitutional question with consequences far beyond labor law: how much control should a president have over independent agencies? For decades, many independent boards and commissions operated with statutory protections that limited removal except for cause. Supporters say those protections preserve agency independence. Critics say they interfere with presidential accountability and executive power.
The Supreme Court’s handling of the Wilcox dispute suggested a judiciary increasingly open to stronger presidential control over independent agency officials, though the broader constitutional debate remains complex. If courts continue moving in that direction, the NLRB, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies could all face a future where leadership changes faster and policy swings more sharply after elections.
That matters because labor law already moves like a pendulum. One administration expands worker protections; the next narrows them. One Board strengthens union remedies; another restores employer discretion. If agency independence weakens further, the pendulum may swing even faster. Employers may welcome clarity when their preferred side is in power, but rapid reversals also make long-term compliance planning harder.
Specific Examples: How the Shift Could Play Out
Imagine a warehouse where employees begin discussing unionization after complaints about scheduling, heat, and production quotas. Under a more union-friendly NLRB, aggressive employer meetings, handbook warnings, or discipline near the campaign could trigger stronger scrutiny and possibly stronger remedies. Under a more employer-friendly Board, management may have more room to hold meetings, enforce workplace rules, and argue against unionization, as long as it avoids direct threats or retaliation.
Consider a hospital contractor where employees file unfair labor practice charges after supervisors allegedly question workers about union support. Under tighter NLRB intake procedures, the employees may need to provide names, dates, documents, and witness summaries quickly. If they wait too long or submit vague claims, the charge could be dismissed before it gains traction.
Now consider a federal agency component newly excluded from collective bargaining coverage under a national-security order. Employees who previously relied on a union contract for grievance procedures, official time, telework rules, or scheduling protections may suddenly find those tools weakened or unavailable. Agency leaders gain flexibility, but workers lose a formal channel for negotiating workplace conditions.
Employer Compliance Checklist
Employers should not treat the Trump NLRB as a free pass to act recklessly. The National Labor Relations Act still protects concerted activity, union organizing, and worker speech about workplace conditions. Retaliation remains illegal. Threats remain risky. Surveillance remains dangerous. A new Board may change the edges of the law, but it does not erase the law.
Companies should review handbook policies, train supervisors, prepare lawful communication plans for union campaigns, and keep documentation consistent. The smartest employers will avoid victory laps. Labor law is cyclical, and today’s aggressive tactic can become tomorrow’s exhibit in an unfair labor practice case.
Union Strategy Checklist
Unions should expect a tougher legal environment and plan accordingly. That means stronger worker education, cleaner evidence collection, faster response to employer conduct, and more disciplined organizing timelines. Messaging should focus on concrete workplace issues such as pay, staffing, scheduling, safety, benefits, and respect.
Union campaigns are often won before the petition is filed. In a less favorable NLRB environment, that becomes even more true. Organizers need support networks, documentation systems, and trusted workplace leaders before management’s anti-union campaign begins.
Practical Experience: What This Feels Like on the Ground
Anyone who has watched a workplace organizing campaign up close knows labor policy is not abstract. It shows up in break rooms, staff meetings, Slack channels, disciplinary write-ups, HR scripts, and awkward supervisor conversations that begin with, “I’m not supposed to say this, but…”which is usually a reliable sign that something risky is about to be said.
In practical experience, the first impact of a major NLRB shift is not always a court decision. It is behavior. Employers become more confident. HR teams revise talking points. Outside counsel updates training slides. Managers who were previously told to stay quiet may suddenly receive more detailed instructions on what they can say during union campaigns. The tone changes before the law fully changes.
Workers feel that change too. In a pro-labor environment, employees may believe the NLRB is a strong backup if management crosses the line. In a more employer-friendly environment, workers may become more cautious. Some may still organize, but they will ask harder questions: Will the agency act quickly? Will the charge be dismissed? Will the employer get away with delay? Will witnesses be willing to speak?
For federal employees, the experience can be even more immediate. A collective bargaining agreement is not just a legal document. It can govern schedules, telework, grievance rights, disciplinary procedures, performance disputes, and how employees communicate with management. When an executive order removes bargaining coverage or directs agencies to terminate certain labor-management practices, workers may feel the change in their daily routines before they understand the legal theory behind it.
One common workplace lesson is that uncertainty favors the side with more resources. Large employers usually have lawyers, consultants, internal communications teams, and managers trained to respond quickly. Individual workers often have group chats, lunch breaks, and maybe one person who once took a labor law class. That imbalance is why documentation and preparation matter so much.
Another practical lesson is that labor law rarely stays still. Companies that rewrite every policy as aggressively as possible during a Republican Board may regret it when a Democratic Board returns. Unions that rely only on NLRB doctrine, without building durable worker support, may struggle when doctrine changes. The most resilient strategy on both sides is not panic, but preparation.
For employers, that means creating lawful, consistent, respectful workplace systems before organizing begins. For unions, it means building trust before conflict peaks. For workers, it means understanding that rights are strongest when people know them, document them, and act together. The NLRB can amplify workplace power, but it cannot manufacture solidarity from thin air. Even the most powerful federal agency cannot organize a break room where nobody talks to each other.
Trump’s labor policy orders and NLRB nominations therefore should not be seen as isolated Washington events. They are signals that travel downward into workplaces. They influence how agencies bargain, how employers campaign, how unions organize, and how workers judge the risks of speaking up. The names on the Board matter. The orders matter. But the real story is what happens next in offices, warehouses, hospitals, factories, universities, airports, and federal buildings across the country.
Conclusion
Trump’s nominations of Scott Mayer and James Murphy to the NLRB, combined with Crystal Carey’s confirmation as general counsel and executive orders limiting federal collective bargaining, mark one of the most important labor-policy pivots of his second term. The changes affect both private-sector labor law and federal labor-management relations, creating a more employer-friendly and management-flexible environment.
Supporters argue that the shift restores presidential control, improves agency efficiency, protects national security, and reins in what they view as overly aggressive Biden-era labor policy. Critics argue that it weakens worker protections, undermines union rights, and stretches national-security reasoning too far.
The safest prediction is that labor law will remain active, contested, and politically charged. Employers should prepare but avoid overreach. Unions should organize carefully and document everything. Workers should understand their rights and keep records. In American labor policy, the pendulum never sleepsit just changes suits.
