Equality at Work

What do I need to know about this?

The Trump administration’s attempt to cast lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices as “illegal DEI” is the administration’s most obvious line of attack on anti-discrimination practices. But another vector, and one operating at a much larger scale, is the parallel effort to hollow out the federal workforce through a combination of layoffs, elimination of services, and targeting of Black, LGBTQ+, and female workers.

The federal government has long stood both as a model for equal employment practices and as one of the most accessible workplaces for people traditionally excluded from private sector work. The administration’s attacks threaten both to erode stable, middle-class job opportunities for large numbers of Americans, and to undermine efforts for equality in all US workplaces.

Before we look at the administration’s actions—and the legal, legislative, and community countermoves already underway—some essential context:

• The federal government is the largest employer in the country: The federal government employs about 3 million civilians,¹ or just under 2% of the US workforce.²

• Federal workers have especially strong protections against illegal discrimination: Although all US employers are required to obey federal employment laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission directly coordinates³ anti-discrimination work across the federal government to ensure compliance. Agencies are required to maintain an office⁴ that handles complaints about harassment and discrimination, and to adhere to strict transparency rules⁵ for employment actions.

• Most federal workers have additional labor protections: About two-thirds of federal workers⁶ have civil service (or “merit systems”) protections⁷ that are intended to protect them and their work from political purges, and about a third of federal workers⁸ are members of labor unions. As a result, federal workers have multiple avenues⁹ for seeking protection against unfair discrimination.

These requirements and protections, combined with the scale of the federal workforce, have made the federal government a powerful force for equality at work. In addition to hurting everyone who relies on services performed by the federal government, the administration’s DOGE-enabled assault on federal workers disproportionately harms two groups in particular: Black Americans,¹⁰ who have benefited from anti-discrimination rules for federal jobs, and veterans,¹¹ who as of 2024 made up about 30% of all federal civilian workers.

Not included in the counts of civilian workers are the approximately 2 million uniformed service members¹² of the US armed forces. We include attacks on equality in the armed forces on this page as an explicit recognition that uniformed service members are also federal workers who—despite their special circumstances—deserve protection against discrimination.

What is happening?

The Trump administration is using the federal government’s power as the country’s largest employer to weaken equal access to employment by:

• Slashing the federal workforce, which reduces access to increased economic equality and stability for Black Americans, veterans of the US armed forces, and others who experience unfair exclusion in the private sector. More on this

• Gutting civil rights and anti-discrimination protections for federal workers by eliminating programs that strive to ensure fairness in hiring, management, and human resources policy, and closing Civil Rights Offices that oversee compliance with federal employment law for federal employees. More on this

• Banning transgender servicemembers and purging Black and female leaders from the US armed forces, reversing previous anti-discrimination policies and specifically targeting high-ranking officials. More on this

On this page, we’ll break down those lines of attack, along with the countermoves and resilience efforts we’re seeing across American society.

Attack: Slashing the federal workforce

Last updated: Jun 4, 2025

In the first two months after Inauguration Day, the Trump administration and the Elon-Musk-led DOGE initiative fired approximately 24,000 “probationary” workers across federal agencies.¹³ Probationary workers¹⁴ are those newly hired into the federal workforce, or recently promoted into a new position; probation typically lasts one to two years. Probationary workers have fewer federal labor protections than their colleagues, and were therefore the easiest target for rapid, indiscriminate cuts of federal jobs and services. A limited (but unknown) number of cuts were directly related to the administration’s Day-One DEI ban:¹⁵ The administration fired federal workers assigned to DEI-related activities¹⁶ and placed workers on leave as part of the DEI ban, despite the fact that many fired workers reportedly had no DEI-related responsibilities.¹⁷

Much broader cuts to the federal workforce are now underway. CNN estimates¹⁸ that the Trump Administration has fired or announced firings of more than 120,000 federal workers as of April 28, 2025. This is an undercount: CNN’s figures do not include workers who were rehired, those placed on administrative leave¹⁹ but not permitted to resume their work, and the approximately 75,000 workers²⁰ who accepted buyouts by mid-February. CNN’s figures include 70,000 workers targeted for layoffs at the Veterans Administration, but the actual figures may be as high as 83,000 VA workers, according to an internal memo.²¹

The April 2025 Challenger Report²² from venerable outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas²³ estimates that total DOGE-linked federal job cuts, including federal employees and contractors, affected 283,172 people in 2025, making up nearly half of all job cuts across the US so far this year. March’s layoffs—dominated by federal cuts—were the third-highest since the firm began tracking layoffs in 1989; the highest and second-highest months were April and May of 2020. This estimate agrees with Politico’s rough figure of a quarter of a million federal workers²⁴ fired or nudged into resignation.

In the background of these job cuts, federal hiring has been frozen—but not across the board. A Day One presidential memo²⁵ froze hiring for all federal jobs with the exception of military personnel and “positions related to immigration enforcement, national security, or public safety.” For all departments and agencies except the IRS, the freeze was set to expire within 90 days, but on April 17, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential memo²⁶ extending the freeze to July 15, and ordering that after its expiration, departments and agencies will only be able to hire one new worker for every four who leave. Separately, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a hiring freeze²⁷ (PDF) at the Department of Defense that stranded civilian workers²⁸ already in the process of moving to new DoD jobs around the world. Unlike freezes at all other agencies, the IRS hiring freeze is indefinite and will last until the Secretary of the Treasury—along with Russell Vought’s Office of Management and Budget and Elon Musk’s DOGE—decide to end it. Political appointments are exempt²⁹ from the freeze.

The Trump administration’s mass job cuts were announced as a vehicle for massive savings: DOGE initially promised $2.2 trillion in savings,³⁰ and now claims to have saved $160 billion.³¹ According to an analysis of Treasury spending by the nonpartisan (if pragmatically right-leaning)³² Penn Wharton Budget Model, federal spending is up $156 billion³³ since Donald Trump took office. The nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service estimates that the DOGE-linked cuts have cost $135 billion,³⁴ not including legal expenses required to fight related lawsuits or lost tax revenue due to IRS job cuts and dropped investigations. The Treasury Department estimates a tax revenue loss of up to $500 billion³⁵ in 2025 due to changes at the IRS.

Where this stands

Judicial orders are currently complicating some administration figures’ stated plans to hollow out the federal government.³⁶ A lawsuit seeking to block the majority of the administration’s mass layoffs³⁷ has resulted in a halt to layoffs while the case proceeds; the administration has appealed to the Supreme Court. Earlier, many fired probationary workers across the federal government were rehired under court orders, and then refired³⁸ after the Supreme Court³⁹ and a federal court of appeals⁴⁰ paused reinstatements. Meanwhile, a Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge ruled in May⁴¹ that probationary employees can pursue reinstatement in a class action. We expect to see further litigation in that area. It’s unclear how many fired federal workers, if any,⁴² will be permanently reinstated.

Who is being affected?

Since the 1960s, the federal government has made it easier for people unfairly excluded from private-sector employment to get stable, middle-class jobs by enacting hiring and management policies grounded in civil rights law. Attacks on the federal workforce affect all Americans who interact with the federal agencies and services. They also disproportionately harm communities who experience unfair exclusion in the private sector, including Black Americans⁴³ and military veterans.

Black Americans: Federal employment policy has resulted in the expansion of the Black middle class,⁴⁴ and mass cuts to the federal workforce directly endangers these gains.⁴⁵ Black workers make up about 18.5% of the federal workforce,⁴⁶ compared to about 13% of the US workforce⁴⁷ as a whole. At the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is targeted for the largest cuts across all agencies to date, about a quarter of employees are Black.⁴⁸ At the Department of Education, which has been cut in half since January, 30% of employees are Black.⁴⁹ Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics⁵⁰ shows that 106,000 Black women lost jobs in April 2025, the largest job loss of any demographic⁵¹ that month.

Veterans: About 1 in 10 employed veterans⁵² in the US works for the federal government, where they make up about 30% of the federal civilian workforce.⁵³ Veterans are likely to experience disproportionate harm as the Trump Administration slashes jobs across federal departments, including 80,000 jobs targeted⁵⁴ at the Department of Veterans Affairs—a layoff that has the potential to harm veterans who receive VA care as well as those who provide and administer it.

Countermoves: legislative & legal actions

• Federal workers fired over their connection (or alleged connection) to DEI work⁵⁵ have filed a class-action complaint⁵⁶ with the US Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing that the firings illegally discriminated⁵⁷ against workers of color, women, and nonbinary workers.
• In a case brought by the American Federation Of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO, and others,⁵⁸ a federal judge in San Francisco blocked the Trump administration’s mass layoffs and reorganizations⁵⁹ across 22 federal agencies. A federal court of appeals declined to reverse the block, and the Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court.⁶⁰
• In an earlier case also brought by American Federation Of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO, and others,⁶¹ a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that mass firings of probationary employees across several federal agencies were unlawful,⁶² and ordered that the workers be rehired. In April, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to proceed with firing 16,000 federal workers.⁶³
• In a case brought by 20 US states,⁶⁴ a federal judge in Maryland blocked the mass firings of probationary employees⁶⁵ across many agencies—including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) , the parent agency of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—and ordered the agencies to rehire fired workers. This order was blocked by a federal court of appeals⁶⁶ in April.
• Democratic representatives have introduced three bills, a Senate bill⁶⁷ sponsored by Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Andy Kim (D-NJ) that would reinstate all veterans fired without cause and require quarterly reporting from the White House on fired veterans; a companion House bill⁶⁸ sponsored by Derek Tran (D-CA); and a House bill⁶⁹ sponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) that would reinstate with backpay all veterans, military spouses, survivors, veteran caregivers, members of the Guard and Reserves, and fired VA employees, and exempt veterans from future mass cuts to civilian jobs. To date, none of these bills have moved forward.
• Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) said in March that he intends to introduce a bill⁷⁰ to increase Congressional involvement in and oversight⁷¹ of job cuts at the VA, but as of late May, no such bill has been introduced.
• On May 28, federal tech workers from digital services consulting group 18F filed a class-action appeal⁷² with the Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing their firing was retaliation for political beliefs, including work that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Countermoves: community campaigns & resilience efforts

• Federal workers⁷³ rallied⁷⁴ in cities across the US in February⁷⁵ and March⁷⁶ to protest the slashing of federal jobs and the hollowing out of federal services.
• The Federal Unionists Network (FUN)⁷⁷ organized April Congressional recess letter writing campaigns and local visits to elected representatives,⁷⁸ focusing on cuts at the Social Security Administration, the EPA, and the VA. FUN also organized a live call (now archived, video)⁷⁹ to contextualize the federal job cuts in March with union leaders, representatives, and other labor and political leaders.

Attack: Dissolving civil rights protections for federal workers

Last updated: May 28, 2025

In a Day-One executive order,⁸⁰ the Trump Administration ordered the elimination of DEI- and DEIA-related offices and jobs within federal agencies. The US Office of Personnel Management issued guidance⁸¹ (PDF) ordering federal departments and agencies to stop all DEI work, without eliminating functions mandated by federal civil rights law. This move—ordering the end of work that is either partly or entirely mandated by federal law, while publicly stating that mandatory work will somehow continue—is one we see across lines of attack and across issues.

The administration’s subsequent moves clarify that its targets include not only DEI but anti-discrimination and civil rights enforcement mandated by federal law. A news report of federal staff enforcing the administration’s DEI ban by removing a poster reading “Employment Discrimination is Illegal,”⁸² underscores the entanglement between allegedly illegal DEI work and legally mandated anti-discrimination efforts.

Since assuming power, the Trump administration has reportedly:

• Closed the Social Security Administration’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity,⁸³ which dealt with discrimination and harassment complaints and accommodations for disabled employees within the SSA.
• Closed the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,⁸⁴ which processed civil rights complaints from members of the public, but also discrimination and harassment complaints and accommodations for disabled employees within DHS.
• Shut down the Federal Trade Commission’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office,⁸⁵ which processed⁸⁶ discrimination and harassment complaints and handled accommodations for disabled employees at the FTC.
• Reduced or closed NASA’s Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity,⁸⁷ which responded to discrimination and harassment complaints and disability accommodations. (Although internal memos⁸⁸ suggested that only “the Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” branch of NASA’s Equal Opportunity office had been eliminated, the office’s website was removed as of January 22, and a field office’s website returned the message that the “Office Of Diversity and Equal Opportunity⁸⁹ has been decommissioned.”)

These closures happen at the same time as a threatened reduction of opportunity for disabled federal employees who rely on remote work⁹⁰ as a crucial accommodation, presidential rhetoric baselessly blaming disabled workers⁹¹ for plane crashes, and the closure of employee resource groups (ERGs) founded to help federal workers in vulnerable and unfairly excluded communities support and protect each other.⁹²

Where this stands

The White House does not have the power to change or repeal the federal laws that mandate anti-discrimination protections—only Congress has that power, and only federal courts can determine the legality of the Trump administration’s actions.

Multiple lawsuits related to the administration’s DEI ban are making their way through the courts. Some DEI-related closures appear to involve ignoring congressional mandates,⁹³ but barring Congressional interference or judicial orders to re-open and re-staff closed offices and programs, these losses will stand.

Who will be affected?

The weakening or effective removal of anti-discrimination and civil rights protections potentially affects all federal workers, but will fall most heavily on workers who experience discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Likewise, the destruction of employee resource groups and reduction of employee protections comports with plans announced by the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought,⁹⁴ to traumatize and demoralize the federal workforce⁹⁵ as a whole. But by acquiring lists of federal workers in ERGs⁹⁶ and using the DEI ban as cover for firing workers who merely participated in optional DEI-related activities⁹⁷ under former administrations, the Trump administration is able to put specific pressure on women and workers of color,⁹⁸ LGBTQ+ workers,⁹⁹ and disabled workers.¹⁰⁰

Countermoves: community campaigns & resilience efforts

• The president of the American Federation of Government Employees issued a statement¹⁰¹ contextualizing the administration’s attack on DEI(A) as a pretext for firing federal workers and a particular threat to the hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans serving in the federal government.
• The ACLU has issued an explainer¹⁰² on the rights of disabled federal workers and the government’s legal responsibility to continue providing reasonable accommodations, including work-from-home arrangements as needed.
• The Federal Unionists Network put together a public toolkit¹⁰³ for commenting on the Office of Personnel Management’s proposed changes to federal workers’ civil service protections.¹⁰⁴ Comments are due June 7.

Banning transgender servicemembers & purging Black and female leaders from the US armed forces

Last updated: May 13, 2025

Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964¹⁰⁵ outlaws discrimination against federal employees and applicants, federal circuit courts have ruled that this protection does not apply to uniformed service members.¹⁰⁶ Many essential civil rights protections for service members have been granted not through law but by executive orders¹⁰⁷ and Department of Defense policies.¹⁰⁸ These orders and policies are easily revoked by new administrations, and as a result, civil rights protections for service members—and in many cases, for veterans and military families—are highly vulnerable to shifting presidential priorities.

In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order¹⁰⁹ stating that transgender service members are intrinsically unable to uphold “a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,” and directing the Department of Defense to act accordingly. The Department of Defense issued bans on transgender people joining the military or accessing gender-affirming care while in the military¹¹⁰ (PDF) and ordered the removal of transgender service members¹¹¹ (PDF) from the US armed forces.

A second executive order¹¹² signed in January 2025 claims that DEI programs “undermine leadership, merit, and unit cohesion, thereby eroding lethality and force readiness.” In addition to shutting down DEI-related initiatives focused on service-member quality of life¹¹³ and removing recognition of Black, Asian American, and Indigenous service members from military websites,¹¹⁴ the administration has embarked on a purge of senior military leaders that has included the highest-placed Black and female leaders in the armed forces. By the end of April, President Trump had:

• Fired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,¹¹⁵ General CQ Brown Jr.,¹¹⁶ only the second Black general to serve as head of the Joint Chiefs.
• Fired Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Fagan,¹¹⁷ a four-star admiral and the first woman to lead any branch of the US military.
• Fired Admiral Lisa Franchetti,¹¹⁸ the US Navy’s top officer and the first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
• Fired the top US admiral at NATO, Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield,¹¹⁹ a helicopter pilot, former commander of a joint reconstruction team in Afghanistan, and the first woman to lead the Naval War College.¹²⁰

General Brown’s removal is the first firing of a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff¹²¹ in US history. General Fagan and General Franchetti’s firings left the US military with no women in four-star general or admiral¹²² positions.

These purges are connected, rhetorically, to the administration’s attacks on DEI: The Trump administration characterized purged military leaders as “woke.”¹²³ Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth previously singled out General Brown—who was sworn in as Air Force Chief of Staff by President Trump in 2020—as a leader who may have been elevated “because of his skin color,”¹²⁴ rather than his skill. Hegseth also wrote that Franchetti was “unqualified”¹²⁵ and may have been chosen for “optics,” rather than “merit.” Chatfield¹²⁶ and Brown (PDF)¹²⁷ were targeted by the American Accountability Foundation,¹²⁸ a far-right organization¹²⁹ currently focused on ideological purges of government workers and military figures—who are, Reuters reminds us,¹³⁰ intended to be loyal to the constitution, not the president.

Where this stands

• The Supreme Court has allowed the transgender ban to proceed¹³¹ while suits against it proceed through the federal courts, and service members are already being forced out.¹³²
• President Trump has replaced General Brown with Retired Air Force Lt. General Dan Caine,¹³³ the first person to become Chair of the Joint Chiefs without ever having been a four-star general or admiral, and whose appointment required a waiver to circumvent the legal requirement for this experience.
• Admiral Fagan, whom the Trump administration blamed for an inadequate response to a sexual harassment cover-up¹³⁴ by her predecessor, has been replaced by Admiral Kevin Lunday¹³⁵ pending the nomination and confirmation of a new Commandant. Lunday, as acting Coast Guard Commandant, immediately suspended the policy Fagan established to combat sexual harassment.¹³⁶
• Admiral Franchetti has been replaced by Admiral Jim Kirby¹³⁷ until a new Chief Naval Officer is nominated and confirmed.¹³⁸
• Vice Admiral Chatfield, a three-star admiral, has been replaced at NATO’s Military Committee by Brigadier General Sean Flynn.¹³⁹ (Brigadier generals are one-star generals.)

Who will be affected?

Because of the transgender service ban, all transgender active, National Guard, and reserve members of the US armed forces face the prospect of being forced to self-identify¹⁴⁰ for “voluntary separation” or be pushed out of the service. The Department of Defense estimates the number of servicemembers with an officially recorded diagnosis of gender dysphoria at about 4,200 people.¹⁴¹ In 2018, the independent research institute The Palm Center used anonymous survey responses to estimate that the true number of transgender servicemembers was roughly 14,700¹⁴² (PDF).

Determining the effects of President Trump’s purge of Black and female military leaders is more difficult. Taken as part of the administration’s wider purge of generals and top military lawyers, the firings alarm legal analysts,¹⁴³ military lawyers,¹⁴⁴ and lawmakers¹⁴⁵ who believe the firings are politicizing and weakening the US armed forces. Taken as part of an effort to target women and service members of color,¹⁴⁶ they raise concerns that women in the military will receive even less support¹⁴⁷ and that the administration’s military DEI ban is, in practice, an attack on leaders who aren’t white men.¹⁴⁸

Countermoves: legislative & legal actions

• Multiple lawsuits¹⁴⁹ have been filed against the transgender service ban, and although two federal judges blocked the Trump administration’s ban via temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, the Supreme Court is allowing the ban to go into effect¹⁵⁰ while one case proceeds, and the DC Circuit Court is expected to do the same¹⁵¹ with another similar case.¹⁵² In a third case, a federal judge has blocked the firing¹⁵³ of two individual transgender plaintiffs.

Countermoves: community campaigns & resilience efforts

• Advocates for Trans Equality has issued an explanation of the rights of transgender veterans¹⁵⁴ receiving care from the Veterans Health Administration.
• SPARTA—a nonprofit made up of transgender people currently serving in the US Armed Forces—has a list of resources¹⁵⁵ for transgender service members.