Major Changes for NLRB Under New Trump Administration

On the evening of January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump executed a dramatic and unprecedented shake-up at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), firing both Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel, and Gwynne Wilcox, a sitting Board member with a term extending into 2028.

While the removal of a General Counsel has historical precedent, as President Biden fired Peter Robb on his first day in office in 2021—the decision to terminate a Board member is unprecedented in the history of the NLRB. These actions raise legal, procedural, and practical questions about the future of the agency, leaving employers, unions, and workers to grapple with what comes next.

Firing Agency Leaders Sparks Uncertainty

Abruzzo’s dismissal follows a now predictable pattern of newly elected presidents targeting the NLRB General Counsel as a means to assert their administration’s labor agenda. However, the simultaneous removal of Gwynne Wilcox—a Board member whose term was not set to expire for nearly four more years—breaks entirely new ground. No President has ever fired a sitting Board member, a role seemingly designed to be insulated from direct political pressure under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

While an acting General Counsel (Abruzzo’s Deputy GC, Jessica Rutter) has been appointed, the move appears largely ministerial. The acting appointee will likely serve as a placeholder while the administration identifies a more permanent nominee to advance President Trump’s labor priorities. With the Board now left with only two members—one Republican and one Democrat—it will be unable to issue decisions or establish policy until at least one of the two vacant seats is filled, creating a deadlock with potentially far-reaching consequences.

A Legal Gamble That Could Reshape Labor Law

The decision to fire a Board member tests the limits of the NLRA’s removal provisions. The National Labor Relations Act provides that Board members “may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” leaving it unclear whether a President can dismiss a member solely for policy disagreements or to assert political control. This unprecedented action is likely to face legal challenges, adding another layer of uncertainty to an already volatile situation.

The General Counsel’s role as the agency’s chief prosecutor makes the impact of Abruzzo’s removal more immediately tangible. Even without a functioning Board, a new General Counsel can shift the NLRB’s approach to case handling, enforcement priorities, and prosecutorial discretion. For employers, this could mean a rapid de-escalation of aggressive enforcement tactics pursued under Abruzzo, including initiatives aimed at expanding union rights and penalizing perceived anti-union behavior.

Reversing Biden-Era Policies and Pushing the Boundaries

These firings signal a decisive pivot away from the pro-labor stance of the Biden-era NLRB, though the ultimate trajectory remains uncertain. Trump’s administration has previously sought to rein in the NLRB’s authority, and speculation is mounting that this term may bring an even more radical agenda. Some observers suggest the administration could attempt to diminish the agency’s role, or in the most extreme scenario, challenge the constitutionality of the NLRA itself. Such a move would effectively dismantle the federal framework governing private-sector labor relations, leaving a regulatory void and potentially forcing states to fill the gap.

While the Board cannot officially reverse prior decisions or set new policies without a quorum, the appointment of a new General Counsel could result in immediate changes to how cases are handled. As reflected in other early Presidential actions of the new Trump administration, employers should anticipate a focus on limiting union protections and scaling back interpretations of employee rights that were broadened during the previous administration.

The Uncertain Future of Labor Relations

For private-sector employers (subject to the NLRA), the immediate impact of these developments may be a perceived loosening of constraints on their labor practices. Union organizing efforts, unfair labor practice investigations, and other enforcement actions are likely to slow down, at least temporarily, due to the lack of a functioning Board and the administrative turnover at the agency. However, this new landscape is far from settled, and employers should approach any perceived leeway with caution.

The longer-term implications are even more complex. If Trump’s administration succeeds in fundamentally altering the NLRB’s authority or the NLRA itself, the balance of power between employers and organized labor could shift dramatically. In the most extreme scenario, employers might no longer be legally obligated to recognize unions or engage in collective bargaining, upending decades of federal labor law. However, such changes would likely face significant legal and political challenges, creating a protracted period of uncertainty.

Employers – More Freedom or More Risk?

In this highly fluid environment, employers must tread carefully. While the initial fallout from these firings may provide some operational breathing room, particularly for businesses navigating union activity, there is significant risk in acting too aggressively. Legal challenges to Trump’s actions and potential changes to labor law could create new pitfalls for employers who act on perceived opportunities without consulting legal counsel.

Engaging with experienced labor counsel is critical during this transitional period. Employers should review their current labor policies and practices to ensure compliance with existing laws while preparing for potential shifts in enforcement priorities or regulatory changes. Additionally, staying informed about developments at the NLRB will be essential, as the situation could evolve rapidly with new appointments or legal rulings.

The Big Picture Remains Unclear

These firings represent a seismic shift in federal labor policy and could set the stage for unprecedented changes to the regulatory landscape. For employers, the immediate takeaway is clear: the NLRB is in flux, and while this may signal a temporary reprieve from aggressive oversight, the long-term implications are deeply uncertain. Whether the Trump administration pursues a radical overhaul of the NLRB or simply steers it in a more business-friendly direction, employers must remain vigilant and prepared for whatever comes next.