The American government has long been bloated beyond reason—so when President Trump launched an executive order aimed at trimming the fat by laying off tens of thousands of federal employees and even eliminating some agencies altogether, many conservatives gave a hearty cheer. But not everyone was thrilled. On May 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stepped in with a temporary restraining order, putting the brakes on this sweeping reform. And just like that, we were off to the races in yet another classic battle: executive ambition vs. judicial oversight, with a side of bureaucratic inertia.

The Case for the Judge’s Decision: Order in the House

The Constitutional Crossroads

At first blush, Judge Susan Illston’s decision to slam the brakes on President Trump’s executive order might look like just another liberal judge meddling in common-sense reform. But if we’re honest—and we ought to be—we have to admit that this isn’t just about politics. It’s about principle. The U.S. Constitution isn’t a menu of suggestions; it’s the foundation of our republic. And one of its most sacred tenets is the separation of powers.

Yes, the president does have broad authority to run the executive branch, but there’s a line between managing and reengineering. When an executive order proposes mass layoffs—tens of thousands of public employees—and the complete elimination of certain federal agencies, it crosses into legislative territory. That’s Congress’s lane. No executive can do that unilaterally. The judge, like it or not, made the constitutionally correct call by saying, “Not so fast.”

Due Process: Not Just a Buzzword

Let’s not forget that the rule of law protects all Americans—including those working in federal jobs. That doesn’t mean every government employee is an innocent saint or that all jobs are necessary. But basic due process is still due. The plaintiffs in this case raised a serious concern: the layoffs bypassed procedures meant to protect workers’ rights, especially for veterans and long-time public servants. You can’t just throw someone out on the street without fair warning, a chance to appeal, or a legal review. That’s not how we do things in a nation built on Judeo-Christian ethics and constitutional law.

As Proverbs 21:15 (KJV) tells us, “It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” Justice isn’t always about getting our way, it’s about doing what’s right, even when it’s inconvenient. If we start setting aside due process for expediency, we risk turning good intentions into constitutional roadkill.

Cutting with Precision, Not Wrecking Balls

Conservatives rightly call for a smaller, leaner government. And amen to that! But let’s not confuse righteous pruning with reckless hacking. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, for instance, isn’t some bloated paper-pushing agency. It plays a key role in workplace safety, public health research, and emergency response. When layoffs gut an agency like that, the ripple effects are real and far-reaching.

Let’s be clear: “limited government” doesn’t mean “dysfunctional government.” Scripture tells us in Ecclesiastes 10:10, “If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.” Translation? A dull axe requires more force, but a wise man sharpens his tools. The federal government, while too large in many ways, still needs to function effectively where it truly matters.

Instead of slashing first and asking questions later, reforms should be thoughtful, precise, and in line with both legal obligations and moral responsibilities. It’s not about preserving big government—it’s about preserving good government.

This wasn’t a political ambush—it was a constitutional gut-check. Judge Illston’s decision may frustrate those of us who are eager to see the federal leviathan trimmed down, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees. If we believe in the rule of law, we can’t toss it aside when it slows down a plan we like. President Trump’s vision for a more efficient government is absolutely valid. But like any good builder, he’s got to follow the blueprint—and in this case, that blueprint is the Constitution.

There’s a way forward here that honors both the goal of reform and the process of law. We can support our president while also demanding that every branch of government stays in its lane. That’s not weakness—it’s wisdom. And wisdom, unlike bureaucracy, never goes out of style.

The Case Against the Judge’s Decision: Balancing Boldness and Bureaucracy

Executive Action in a Stalemated System

Now, let’s look at this from a different angle. While Judge Illston’s ruling may sound noble to legal theorists and lovers of red tape, to everyday Americans struggling under the weight of an overgrown federal leviathan, it looks like more of the same: unelected judges second-guessing the people’s chosen leader. President Trump’s executive order wasn’t a whimsical power grab—it was a long-overdue effort to bring sanity back to Washington’s runaway spending and bloated bureaucracy.

The order didn’t arbitrarily fire thousands overnight; it laid out a roadmap for agency heads to review, restructure, and, where necessary, reduce their workforces. These weren’t layoffs for the sake of cruelty—they were a response to decades of government expansion that’s been as reckless as it’s been expensive. President Trump’s team rightly argued that the executive branch needs flexibility to manage its operations efficiently. If every personnel decision must pass through a courtroom first, we’re not running a government, we’re babysitting a bureaucracy.

Fiscal Responsibility: A Biblical and Moral Imperative

As conservatives—and especially as Christians—we understand that fiscal responsibility isn’t just practical; it’s moral. Proverbs 13:22 (KJV) tells us, “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children.” What kind of inheritance are we leaving behind when we’re $34 trillion in debt and still hiring more paper-pushers to shuffle documents no one reads? President Trump’s executive order was part of a bold plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget. That’s not a political gimmick—that’s stewardship.

We’ve been here before: Congress drags its feet, entrenched interests protect their turf, and nothing gets done. But President Trump didn’t get reelected to play patty-cake with the status quo. He came to drain the swamp, and that includes trimming the fat from a federal apparatus that’s been living large on the taxpayer’s dime.

Preserving the Core, Cutting the Waste

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t some scorched-earth campaign against all federal programs. Key services like Medicare and Medicaid remained untouched. Essential departments were preserved. The aim wasn’t destruction, it was discipline. President Trump’s approach distinguished between necessary government and wasteful government, something too many in Washington have forgotten how to do.

In an ideal world, Congress would jump on board with these reforms. But in the real world—the one filled with political brinkmanship and grandstanding—a president sometimes has to lead boldly and let the courts catch up later. It’s not about bypassing the Constitution; it’s about fulfilling his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and manage the executive branch effectively.

Courage Over Caution

Sometimes courage looks like standing up to foreign threats. Sometimes, it’s standing up to domestic dysfunction. President Trump’s order was a shot across the bow of a complacent system that’s been drifting for too long. The judge’s ruling, while procedurally sound in its caution, misses the larger point: reform delayed is reform denied. And if we keep allowing legal inertia to stall every serious attempt at cleaning house, we’ll never restore a government that’s truly of, by, and for the people.

Bold action requires bold leadership—and that’s exactly what we got. In the words of James 1:22 (KJV), “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” It’s time for our leaders—and our courts—to not just hear the cries of the overburdened taxpayer, but to do something about it. From this perspective, the judge got it wrong. Reform must press on.

Final Verdict: Reform With Righteousness

Stewardship, Not Just Strategy

From a biblical and conservative perspective, this isn’t just a fight over federal job cuts or agency closures—it’s a question of stewardship. That means managing what we’ve been entrusted with wisely, whether it’s taxpayer dollars, constitutional authority, or public trust. Romans 13:1-2 (KJV) says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” This isn’t a blanket endorsement of government overreach; it’s a call to respect the order God has established. And in our republic, that order includes the rule of law, separation of powers, and the checks that keep tyranny in check—even when it’s our guy in charge.

President Trump’s vision is one that resonates deeply with Christian conservatives: a leaner, more accountable government that actually serves the people instead of feathering its own nest. That’s a righteous mission. But even the most righteous mission must be pursued through lawful means. It’s not enough to want the right outcome, we must get there the right way.

The Ends Don’t Justify the Means

In our zeal to cut waste, reduce spending, and restore common sense to Washington, we must be careful not to trample over the very principles we’re fighting to uphold. Proverbs 11:1 reminds us, “A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.” That verse speaks to fairness, to integrity, and to righteousness in how we act. Reform isn’t about rushing into battle with a sledgehammer—it’s about wielding the sword of truth with precision and grace.

The judge’s decision, while inconvenient, is a reminder that due process, constitutional limits, and institutional balance are not obstacles—they’re safeguards. They protect us from becoming the very thing we claim to oppose: a government that acts first and asks questions later. If we ignore the rule of law just because we believe our end goal is noble, we’re no better than the bureaucrats we criticize.

Reform Done Right

The temporary restraining order isn’t the end of the road. It’s a pause—a speed bump, not a roadblock. It gives us a moment to reflect and regroup. There’s still a path forward for conservative reform, and President Trump has the right instincts to lead that charge. But the best victories are the ones that are not only won but won rightly.

We don’t need to choose between justice and boldness. We can demand both. We can cut fat without cutting corners. And we can honor the Constitution while transforming the government it created.

The Christian Conservative Charge

We are called not just to be fighters, but faithful stewards. That means holding our leaders—and ourselves—to the high standards of both Scripture and civic duty. As Micah 6:8 (KJV) reminds us, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

Let’s move forward boldly—but with humility. Let’s demand reform—but with respect for the rule of law. Let’s pursue truth—but never at the expense of righteousness. Because the only kind of victory that matters is one that honors both our Constitution and our Creator.