Trump administration bans race, gender data in federal workforce hiring
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) outlined the 'Merit Hiring Plan' in a memo sent to heads and acting heads of departments and agencies on Thursday, which directed them to not use statistics on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin or 'the broader concept of 'underrepresentation'' to hire or recruit.
It calls on agencies to stop publishing and distributing information on the composition of the workforce based on race, sex, color, religion or national origin and to end all programs related to hiring that 'discriminate' against groups.
OPM says disciplinary action must be taken if a hiring manager engages in any 'unlawful race preferential discrimination.'
The plan calls for the end to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in hiring, calling them 'illegal, demeaning and immoral.'
'OPM is committed to creating a federal workforce that reflects the highest standards of merit and service,' acting director Charles Ezell said in a statement. 'This plan ensures we hire based on talent, dedication, and constitutional principles, delivering a government that works effectively for all Americans.'
Another goal of the plan is an effort to 'prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch.'
It prioritizes the hiring of those who are committed to improving government efficiency and decreasing the time-to-hire to under 80 days and 'integrate modern technology to support the recruitment and selection process.'
OPM aims to reform the federal workforce recruitment process 'to ensure that only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans are hired' and to implement skilled-based hiring over 'unnecessary degree requirements.'
OPM also announced that on June 30, agency's human capital officers will send reports to OPM and the Office of Management and Budget on recruitment and eliminating such practices the administration deems discriminatory.
The Trump administration has been focused on eliminating DEI in the federal government and has threatened to remove federal funding and grants for private institutions if they don't do away with diversity efforts. The administration pushed Harvard University to end DEI programs and to alter its hiring and admissions processes and has cut billions of dollars in federal funding when the university pushed back.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump administration could attack state laws it says stifle US economy
The Trump administration is hunting for state laws that drag down the US economy. But axing statutes it sees as problematic will depend on how it wields the Constitution's powerful Commerce Clause. Last Friday, the Justice Department and the National Economic Council announced a joint initiative to "address" state statutes that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy.' State regulations, policies, causes of action, and practices were also included as targets. The plan is meant to support the White House's deregulation agenda, which President Trump described in a series of separate executive orders issued in January, February, and April. Those orders emphasize the administration's goal of alleviating policies that it views as "unnecessary burdens" on Americans, small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurship. In an unusual twist, the agencies also solicited help from US citizens, asking members of the public to point out economy-slowing state laws and to propose legal theories that could reverse the laws' adverse effects. "They're crowdsourcing their legal theories," said Emily Berman, a constitutional scholar with the University of Houston Law Center. However, the plan stopped short of explaining what theories the administration would rely on to undo suspected harmful state laws. Jeremy Rovinsky, a federal prosecutor who teaches constitutional law at Crestpoint University, said the language used in the DOJ's plan to attack state laws shows that the Trump administration has the Commerce Clause in mind. "It's clear that Trump's lawyers are thinking through it this way," Rovinsky said. "The Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to regulate state power in an almost unlimited way." But the Commerce Clause doesn't guarantee the administration power to alter state law. The provision vests power to regulate commerce in Congress, not in the executive branch. A more straightforward type of challenge, the lawyer said, is one where state law directly conflicts with federal statutes. In those cases, the Justice Department could raise preemption challenges under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Preemption challenges argue that a state rule essentially steps on the federal government's toes, Berman said. The Commerce Clause Absent such a clear-cut conflict, the administration would need more legal leverage to countermand state law. That leverage could come from the Commerce Clause, the constitutional scholar said, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. "Anything that regulates commerce falls within the scope of Congress's authority, which has been interpreted relatively broadly," Berman said. To tap into the federal government's authority over commerce, the administration would need to persuade lawmakers to pass new federal legislation invalidating state law. Ravinsky said he sees the DOJ's announcement as an opening salvo to persuade members of Congress. "I think the people that are in [Trump's] inner legal circle wrote that document the way they did, because they want to give Congress a heads up to have them codify what he's doing with executive actions into actual congressional legislation," Ravinsky said. Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus at Case Western Reserve School of Law, said it's possible, but not certain, that pressure on Congress from either President Trump or others in the executive branch would lead to new, preemptive federal laws. "If the president says this is a big priority, then maybe a fair number of people in both the House and the Senate would go along with it," Entin said. "Now, whether there will be enough votes, that's a separate question," he added. "Congress does not legislate very much." "If Congress wants to move legislation against state laws that they say hurt the economy, they need 60 votes in the Senate," Entin said. "And the chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate for much of anything these days are pretty slim." The Supreme Court has largely upheld Congress' power over interstate commerce in a series of cases evaluating the Commerce Clause stretching back more than 80 years. In 1942, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Wickard v. Filburn that expanded the federal government's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. The case involved an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The court rejected the farmer's argument that the federal government could not regulate his excess wheat supply under the act because it was grown for personal, rather than commercial, use. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the court reasoned that while a single farmer's excess crop may not substantially impact interstate commerce, the same actions, if taken in the aggregate by multiple farmers, could indeed influence the national market. Despite the Supreme Court's longstanding support for expansive application of the Commerce Clause, Entin suspects that even new federal legislation could fail to preempt certain state laws. States still retain their police powers, he said, and can exercise those powers as long as doing so doesn't interfere with interstate commerce. "It's not clear to me that Congress can use its commerce power to preempt the state's exercise of their police powers, even if state laws may, in fact, be unwise or even foolish," Entin said. The 'dormant' Commerce Clause Still another, and equally uncertain, path to challenge state laws could involve a judge-created theory known as the "Dormant Commerce Clause," the lawyers said. The concept further expands Congress' power over interstate and foreign commerce by limiting states' authority to regulate commerce even when Congress has not directly legislated on an issue. The theory is intended to prevent states from adopting discriminatory, protectionist laws that benefit local economies to the detriment of the national market. The theory was put to the test and shown to have limits in a recent case decided by the Supreme Court. In 2023, the court loosely upheld a California state law known as Proposition 12, which criminalized California sales of pork meat that came from pigs housed in pens measuring less than 24 square feet — 10 square feet larger than the industry standard. The Iowa Pork Producers Association and 23 states argued that the law discriminated against out-of-state pork producers, imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. However, Berman said, Dormant Commerce Clause challenges to state rules have historically been brought by private litigants, not the federal government. "It's going to be a private business sector actor saying, 'Our business is being harmed ... we shouldn't have barriers to markets along state lines." Entin agreed that it would be unusual for the federal government to sue states over their regulations. Alternatively, he said, Congress could try to persuade states to change laws through conditional federal spending. The administration may not find support from the high court for pushing Congress' authority over commerce even further, Entin added. Conservatives on the court in recent years have expressed "real skepticism" about whether courts should be in the business of enforcing the Commerce Clause, he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Micron Stock Got Clobbered Today
Key Points The U.S. government wants to take a 10% stake in Intel. It also wants to trade the free grant money that it already promised Intel in exchange for the shares. And now the rumor that is the government will do the same thing to Micron. 10 stocks we like better than Micron Technology › Computer memory specialist Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU) stock tumbled 6.2% through 10:30 a.m. ET Wednesday, and for one simple reason: As you've probably heard, Bloomberg reports that President Trump is planning to take an equity stake in Intel (NASDAQ: INTC). Wait. What? Intel? Not Micron? Yes, you read that right. Pursuant to the CHIPS Act passed under the Biden administration to support the U.S. semiconductor industry, Intel was awarded $10.9 billion in grants, but new negotiations between Intel and the White House suggest the Trump administration now wants to convert those grants into a 10% equity stake in Intel, effectively part-nationalizing the company. But Intel isn't the only company to receive CHIPS Act grants. Micron was awarded $6.1 billion as well -- the second-biggest semiconductor subsidy after Intel's. And now we're learning that U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick may want to convert that grant into an equity stake as well. What does this mean for Micron? That's exactly the question, isn't it: What does this mean for Micron? On the one hand, if Commerce decides to convert its grant into a stock investment, this would effectively deprive Micron of $6.1 billion in "free money" that it thought it had -- clearly bad news for the stock. On the other, Micron would still get the money -- just with strings attached -- and perhaps be set up to receive additional investments from the government if it needs them. But the rumor that the government wants to pressure Micron for an equity stake could turn out to be false. That would still leave Micron competing with a state-backed rival in Intel, which could ask for further handouts that Micron might not get. This is bad news for Micron. Should you invest $1,000 in Micron Technology right now? Before you buy stock in Micron Technology, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Micron Technology wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $654,781!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,076,588!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,055% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 18, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Intel. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: short August 2025 $24 calls on Intel. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Micron Stock Got Clobbered Today was originally published by The Motley Fool
San Francisco Chronicle
4 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls on Federal Reserve official to resign after ally accuses her of mortgage fraud
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook to resign after a member of his administration accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud. Bill Pulte, director of the agency that oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, urged the Justice Department to investigate Cook, who was appointed to the Fed's governing board by former president Joe Biden in 2022. She was reappointed the following year to a term that lasts until 2038. Pulte alleged that Cook has claimed two homes as her principal residences -- one in Georgia, the other in Michigan -- to fraudulently obtain better mortgage lending terms. The allegation represents another front in the Trump administration's attack on the Fed, which has yet to cut its key interest rate as Trump has demanded. If Cook were to step down, then the White House could nominate a replacement. And Trump has said he would only appoint people who would support lower rates. The Federal Reserve declined to comment on the accusation. Trump has for months demanded that the Federal Reserve reduce the short-term interest rate it controls, which currently stands at about 4.3%. Trump says that a lower rate would reduce the government's borrowing costs on $37 trillion in debt and boost the housing market by reducing mortgage rates. Yet mortgage borrowing costs do not always follow the Fed's rate decisions. The Trump administration has made similar claims of mortgage fraud against Democrats that Trump has attacked, including California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
