An attorney for the U.S. government refused to say Wednesday how many probationary federal employees have been terminated as he tried to defend the mass firings against a lawsuit from 20 attorneys general, including Maryland’s.

The judge overseeing the case did not immediately rule on a request from the states to reinstate the employees to their jobs. Senior U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar said at the close of the hearing that he expects to rule “promptly.”

Bredar repeatedly questioned the federal government’s lawyer, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Eric J. Hamilton, who offered little information about the firings.

In a tense exchange at the beginning of Hamilton’s argument, Bredar asked for an estimate of how many probationary employees have been fired amid the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the size of the federal government.

“Give me an estimate,” Bredar asked. “More than 50?”

Hamilton said he could not provide an estimate.

“Less than 50?” Bredar asked.

“I suspect it is not,” Hamilton replied.

As the back-and-forth continued, Bredar asked if anybody in the government knew the answer. Hamilton said he did not know.

“You don’t know if anybody in the government knows?” Bredar asked incredulously.

The exchange underscored the extraordinary nature of the court hearing, in which the government tried to fend off a legal challenge to mass firings by giving vague answers to questions about their legality.

A central issue in the case is whether the government’s firings of probationary employees constitute a “reduction in force,” or RIF, that triggered certain requirements, including giving the states a heads-up so that they could prepare for an influx of laid-off workers.

The states argue that the mass terminations left them scrambling to provide resources and to evaluate a glut of unemployment claims. They requested a temporary restraining order, a short-term court order designed to maintain the status quo while a lawsuit is ongoing.

The federal government argued in response that it is within its rights to terminate probationary employees for performance issues, and that it did so here — an assertion that Bredar suggested was “implausible.”

Some terminated employees received glowing evaluations shortly before being fired, the judge noted. Hamilton suggested that the government could determine that broad swaths of federal employees were not fit for their jobs because the jobs were no longer considered necessary.

Like a reduction in force, Bredar countered.

“There was an election, there’s a new administration, there’s a whole new perspective ... about how the government should operate,” Bredar said. “Accordingly, in alignment with that realignment, they’ve decided to shift thousands of persons out of federal employment.

“Which may well be their prerogative,” Bredar continued. “This case isn’t about whether or not the government can terminate people. It’s about if they decide to terminate people, how they must do it.”

Thousands of Marylanders — state budget analysts project 28,000 — are expected to lose their jobs as the government slashes employees and programs. Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, who is leading the states’ lawsuit, was present in court for Wednesday’s hearing.

Virginia Williamson, an attorney in Brown’s office who represented the states in court, said that Congress outlined what should happen during an RIF, including notice to the states and worker protections, such as preference for veterans to keep their jobs and an assessment of how long employees have worked for the federal government.

“RIFs take 12 to 18 months at times, certainly not a few days or a few weeks,” she said.

At one point in the hearing, after Hamilton tried to explain the government’s basis for firing probationary employees, Bredar mused on the phrase “move fast and break things,” sometimes used by tech companies to justify swift actions and the damage they can leave behind.

It has also been used to describe tech billionaire Elon Musk’s approach to the federal government since he was installed as the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, which is not an actual government agency.

“Move fast? Fine,” Bredar said. “Break things? If that involves breaking the law, then that becomes problematic.”