On March 28, 2025, the administration’s recent actions against independent agencies have raised concerns about impacts on workers. Donald Trump, during his presidency campaign, had pledged to advocate for working people. However, discrepancies have emerged since his term began, and the situation continues to develop.
Most recently, Trump has taken steps to potentially dismantle an independent labor agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). This move follows previous initiatives targeting other regulatory bodies like the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by dismissing Democratic members from these agencies. The FMCS plays a critical role in assisting companies, workers, and unions in reaching agreements and resolving disputes.
The FMCS, a small independent federal agency with around 200 employees, was established by Congress to facilitate collective bargaining. This action signifies the importance Congress placed on maintaining industrial harmony. The agency’s origin traces back to the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, intended to curb union powers by imposing restrictions such as prohibiting secondary boycotts. FMCS was created to reduce and manage strikes and labor disputes, functioning independently from the Labor Department, unlike its predecessor, the US Conciliation Service.
Despite its controversial beginnings, FMCS focuses on aiding parties during negotiations with expert mediators in numerous private sector deals each year. It is important to note that FMCS is not involved in regulatory enforcement. Instead, it assists organizations voluntarily in achieving agreements and trains them on collective bargaining and labor-management relationships—all at no expense to the involved parties. This service is seen by Congress as a valuable investment, costing approximately $55 million annually.
Recently, an executive order issued on March 14, 2025, directed FMCS and similar agencies to eliminate “non-statutory components and functions” and minimize statutory responsibilities. As FMCS faces scrutiny over its continued relevance, the agency must defend its contributions and align with its congressional mandate. Furthermore, allegations from over a decade ago have resurfaced, aiming to justify the agency’s closure—claims that were already investigated and addressed.
Currently, it appears that the FMCS is facing closure, as employees have been informed, and mediations are being terminated. Speculation arises regarding the future of its functions. There is a possibility that these responsibilities might be transferred to the Labor Department, although it lacks expertise in this domain, or that these services might disappear, leaving unions and companies, especially smaller ones, without support.
Ultimately, the potential dismantling of FMCS, established to support the collective bargaining process, represents another addition to the administration’s actions perceived as unfavorable towards workers, despite initial campaign promises to advocate for their interests.
