Federal employees told to remove pronouns from email signatures by end of day
"Pronouns and any other information not permitted in the policy must be removed from CDC/ATSDR employee signatures by 5.p.m. ET on Friday," according to one such message sent Friday morning from Jason Bonander, the CDC's Chief Information Officer. "Staff are being asked to alter signature blocks by 5.p.m. ET today (Friday, January 31, 2025) to follow the revised policy."
Federal employees with the Department of Transportation received a similar directive on Thursday, the same day the department was managing the fallout from the D.C. plane crash near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
MORE: Trump 2nd term live updates: Several senior FBI officials told to resign or else be fired or demoted
Employees were instructed to remove pronouns from everything from government grant applications to email signatures across the department, sources told ABC News.
Employees at the Department of Energy who received a similar notice Thursday were told this was to meet requirements in Trump's executive order calling for the removal of DEI "language in Federal discourse, communications and publications."
It was not immediately clear whether employees in other federal agencies received similar messages. Spokespeople for the Transportation Department, Energy Department, HHS and CDC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
The mandate to remove pronouns from email signatures is the latest result of the Trump administration's push to do away with diversity and equity efforts in the federal government.
On his first day in office, Trump signed a pair of executive orders calling for an end to what his administration called "radical and wasteful DEI programs" and seeking to restore "biological truth to the federal government." Both orders were referenced in the Friday message to agencies.
The memos included instructions for how to edit email signatures.
At least one career civil servant met the order with irritation.
"In my decade-plus years at CDC I've never been told what I can and can't put in my email signature," said one recipient, who asked not to be identified out of fear of retribution.
A memo issued Wednesday by the Office of Personnel Management also directed agencies to "Review agency email systems such as Outlook and turn off features that prompt users for their pronouns."
ABC News' Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.
Federal employees told to remove pronouns from email signatures by end of day originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrat Sherrod Brown says he will try to return to US Senate in 2026
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrat Sherrod Brown of Ohio said on Monday he would try to return to the U.S. Senate seat in next year's midterm elections, a development that could bolster his party's chances of winning back control of the chamber. Brown, 72, said U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and health-care cuts prompted him to return to politics. "I didn't plan to run for office again. But when I see what's going on, I know I can do something about it for Ohio," Brown said in a video posted to social media. Brown served for 18 years in the Senate before he lost 50.1%-46.5% to Republican Bernie Moreno last November. He built a reputation as a champion for blue-collar workers in Ohio, an industrial state that has lost jobs to globalization. The state, once a political battleground, has trended increasingly Republican over the past decade. Brown will likely face Republican Senator John Husted, who was appointed in January to temporarily fill the seat vacated by JD Vance when he became vice president. Husted previously served as Ohio's lieutenant governor. The winner of the November 2026 special election would serve the remainder of Vance's Senate term, ending in January 2029. Analysts say it will be difficult for Democrats to pick up the four seats they will need to win back control of the Senate, which now has a 53-47 Republican majority. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report said Brown, the only Democrat to win statewide office in the past two decades, will make the race competitive and moved its rating from "likely Republican" to "lean Republican."
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's redistricting plan is a power grab. But the GOP objections are rubbish
SACRAMENTO — One accusation hurled at Gov. Gavin Newsom for his retaliatory redistricting move against President Trump and Texas Republicans is that he's overriding the will of California voters. Rubbish. The flawed argument goes like this: Californians — once upon a time — voted overwhelmingly to ban partisan gerrymandering and strip the task of drawing congressional seats from self-interested legislators. In a historic political reform, redistricting was turned over to an independent citizens' commission. Now, Newsom is trying to subvert the voters' edict. 'It is really a calculated power grab that dismantles the very safeguards voters put in place,' California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement last week, echoing other party members. 'This is Gavin the Gaslighter overturning the will of the voters and telling you it's for your own good.' Again, baloney. Power grab? Sure. Overturning the voters' will? Hardly. Newsom is asking voters to express a new will–seeking permission to fight back against Trump's underhanded attempt to redraw congressional districts in Texas and other red states so Republicans can retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives after next year's midterm elections. First of all, that anti-gerrymandering vote creating the citizens' commission was 15 years ago. It was a wise decision and badly needed, and still a wonderful concept in the abstract. But that was then, this is now. Just because a ballot measure was passed one or two decades ago doesn't mean it has been cast in stone. Would Californians still vote to ban same-sex marriage or deny public schooling to undocumented children? Doubtful. Circumstances and views change. Second, that 2010 electorate no longer exists. Today's electorate is substantially different. And it shouldn't necessarily be tied to the past. Consider: PPIC researchers recently reported that 'partisanship now shapes the state's migration — with those moving out of the state more likely to be Republican and those moving in more likely to be Democrat. … This process makes California more Democratic than it would otherwise be.' So, Newsom and Democratic legislators are not thumbing their noses at the voters' will. They're asking today's voters to suspend the ban on gerrymandering and adopt a partisan redistricting plan at a Nov. 4 special election. The good government process of map drawing by the citizen's commission would return after the 2030 decennial census. The heavily Democratic Legislature will pass a state constitutional amendment containing Newsom's plan and put it on the ballot, probably this week. It would take effect only if Texas or other red states bow to Trump's demand to gerrymander their congressional districts to rig them for Republicans. Trump is seeking five more GOP seats from Texas and Gov. Greg Abbott is trying to oblige. Republicans already hold 25 of the 38 seats. Newsom's plan, released Friday, counters Texas' scheme with a blatant gerrymander of his own. It would gain five Democratic seats. Democrats already outnumber Republicans on the California House delegation 43 to 9. Neither the governor nor any Democrats are defending gerrymandering. They agree it's evil politics. They support redistricting by the citizens' commission and believe this high-road process should be required in every state. But that's not about to happen. And to stand by meekly without matching the red states' election rigging would amount to unilateral disarmament, they contend correctly. 'It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be,' Newsom declared at a campaign kickoff last week. 'We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt. And we have got to meet fire with fire.' But polling indicates it could be a tough sell to voters. A large majority believe the bipartisan citizens commission should draw congressional districts, not the politicians who they don't particularly trust. 'It'll be complicated to explain to voters why two wrongs make a right,' says Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, a GOP never-Trumper. Former GOP redistricting consultant Tony Quinn says: 'There is no way to 'educate' voters on district line drawing. And Californians vote 'no' on ballot measures they do not understand. … It's sort of like trying to explain the basketball playoffs to me.' But veteran Democratic strategist Garry South doesn't see a problem. 'The messaging here is clear: 'Screw Trump',' South says. 'If the object is to stick it to Trump, [voter] turnout won't be a problem.' Gerrymandering may not be the voters' will in California. But they may well jump at the chance to thwart Trump. The must-read: Newsom's decision to fight fire with fire could have profound political consequences The TK: Trial in National Guard lawsuit tests whether Trump will let courts limit authority The L.A. Times Special: Hundreds of Californians have been paid $10,000 to relocate to Oklahoma. Did they find paradise? Until next week,George Skelton —Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump ‘has completely ceded narrative control' to Putin: Fiona Hill
President Trump has 'completely ceded narrative control' of the Russia-Ukraine war to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a former top adviser-turned vocal critic said in an interview published Monday. Fiona Hill, who served as a senior adviser on Russia at the National Security Council during Trump's first term, argued in a Politico interview that Trump is endorsing Moscow's position that it's enough if it decides to stop fighting. 'What Ukraine is just basically getting as a concession is for the Russians to stop fighting. And this is Putin's way all the way through the 25 years of his presidency, which is: 'I'm going to beat you up and my concession is that I stopped beating you up,'' she said. Hill said in another interview on CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday that Trump's red-carpet treatment of Putin in Alaska on Friday also played into the Russian leader's hands. 'Although it was presented as perhaps a show of power by being at a U.S. Air Force base with the … passing of the B-52s and other fighter jets, it did certainly look much more like a show of appreciation for Vladimir Putin,' she said. 'And so the optics were really much more favorable to Putin than they were to the United States. It really looked like Putin had set the agenda there, the narrative, and in many respects, the tone for the whole summit meeting.' Hill's remarks come as Trump on Monday meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders at the White House to discuss terms Putin laid out at the meeting in Alaska, and efforts to move toward a leaders-level summit to end the war. Trump left the meeting with Putin late last week without securing a ceasefire agreement from the Russian leader, who has repeatedly refused to halt fighting in Ukraine. Trump instead said both parties should move to negotiations for an end to the war. Hill served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council. She was a high-profile witness during the 2019 impeachment investigation against Trump over whether he was exerting pressure on Zelensky for dirt on his political rival former President Biden. Hill warned in her testimony that Republican lawmakers were repeating a Kremlin-pushed, false narrative that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election. A GOP-led Senate intelligence investigation concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. A White House spokesperson pushed back on Hill's comments Monday, telling Politico that Trump 'has done more to deliver peace in seven months than Joe Biden did in four years' while calling the former Russia White House adviser the 'go-to Trump Deranged 'expert' on Russia.'
