At least 55 employees at the Department of Education have been put on administrative leave for attending a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training course, encouraged during President Trump’s first term. This decision reflects the Trump administration’s push to eliminate DEI initiatives across the federal government. The affected employees, mainly attorneys, public affairs staff, loan regulators, and special education professionals, were motivated to participate by then Secretary Betsy DeVos, who previously endorsed such training.
Described as illegal under Trump’s guidelines, DEI programming aims to focus on merit-based employment, which signals significant policy shifts within governmental operations. Sheria Smith, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, expressed concern about the rationale behind the administrative leave, stating, “It looks like they’re entrapping people because they encouraged people to take these trainings … and are now maybe using these trainings as a basis to put them on administrative leave,” highlighting how the employees feel targeted after being encouraged to engage with DEI initiatives.
The employees placed on leave are still receiving full pay and benefits but no longer have access to communications related to their jobs. This maneuver creates uncertainty and apprehension among those affected, who may see their future at the Department of Education threatened as the administration enacts these changes. The “Diversity Change Agent” training, which these employees participated in, was seen by officials within the department as integral to promoting inclusivity and success within varied work environments.
This move has broader ramifications, as similar purges are taking place across multiple federal agencies. Reports indicate the Department of Veterans Affairs has placed nearly 60 employees on leave whose roles were connected to DEI, with their combined salaries exceeding $8 million. Morgan Ackley, the VA's director of media affairs, claimed, “Under President Trump, VA is laser-focused on providing the best possible care and benefits to Veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors,” unequivocally highlighting the pivot away from DEI efforts, which the administration deems divisive.
The shift signifies not just the removal of DEI roles but sends two clear messages: one of intent to refocus federal efforts on different priorities and another highlighting artistic criticism of the diversity initiatives themselves. The tension surrounding DEI initiatives has escalated as those seeking continued advocacy within these realms perceive hostility aimed at preventing progress.
Within the Department of Education, the executive order issued by Trump marked the beginning of these sweeping changes, mandatorily directing heads of federal agencies to close DEI offices by January 22, 2023. This order directly counteracted President Biden’s earlier initiative aimed at promoting racial equity across federal agencies, which had been put forth to strengthen inclusivity efforts.
Union representatives and employees point to confusion and concern as they grapple with the motivations behind these sweeping changes, fearing repercussions for past participation—and even interest—in programs focused on diversity. This purge appears to be not merely logistical but also ideological, signaling uncertainty toward progressive values within the workplace.
Critics argue the consequences of these actions could hinder employee morale and teamwork across federal offices, especially where diversity initiatives were previously seen as key to fostering collaboration and innovation. The forthcoming absence of personnel dedicated to DEI could mean overlooked opportunities to address systemic biases and inequalities within the federal workforce, potentially leading to disengagement among employees who feel marginalized.
Unquestionably, the strategic decision to impose administrative leave aligns with Trump's broader agenda to reshape federal policies and managerial philosophies. The decision to allocate resources away from DEI initiatives highlights substantial shifts and ignites discussions around workforce priorities and the future of federal employment contracts.
Continued scrutiny is directed toward how these policies will affect not only affected employees but also the governmental apparatus aimed at serving all Americans. Should the momentum maintain its current pace, it remains to be seen whether the narratives around merit, inclusivity, and representation will coalesce or diverge within broader national conversations.
These developments suggest perhaps more than just bureaucratic pruning but rather the fundamental essence of employment practices entering uncharted territories as both individuals and institutions react to these systemic changes.