
Trump's Labor Department proposes more than 60 rule changes in a push to deregulate workplaces
If approved, the wide-ranging changes unveiled this month also would affect working conditions at constructions sites and in mines, and limit the government's ability to penalize employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently risky activities such as movie stunts or animal training.
The Labor Department says the goal is to reduce costly, burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations, and to deliver on President Donald Trump's commitment to restore American prosperity through deregulation.
'The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity,' Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, which boasted the 'most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government.'
Critics say the proposals would put workers at greater risk of harm, with women and members of minority groups bearing a disproportionate impact.
'People are at very great risk of dying on the job already,' Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO union's occupational safety and health director, said. 'This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.'
The proposed changes have several stages to get through before they can take effect, including a public comment period for each one.
Here's a look at some of the rollbacks under consideration:
Home health care workers help elderly or medically fragile people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting with toilet use, accompanying clients to doctor appointments and performing other tasks. Under one of the Labor Department's proposals, an estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 per hour — and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren't covered by corresponding state laws.
The proposed rule would reverse changes made in 2013 under former President Barack Obama and revert to a regulatory framework from 1975. The Labor Department says that by lowering labor and compliance costs, its revisions might expand the home care market and help keep frail individuals in their homes for longer.
Judy Conti, director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project, said her organization plans to work hard to defeat the proposal. Home health workers are subject to injuries from lifting clients, and 'before those (2013) regulations, it was very common for home care workers to work 50, 60 and maybe even more hours a week, without getting any overtime pay,' Conti said.
Others endorse the proposal, including the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative nonprofit based in Virginia. Women often bear the brunt of family caregiving responsibilities, so making home care more affordable would help women balance work and personal responsibilities, the group's president, Carrie Lukas, said.
'We're pleased to see the Trump administration moving forward on rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanaging of relationships that were making it hard for people to get the care they need,' Lukas said.
Samantha Sanders, director of government affairs and advocacy at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, said the repeal would not constitute a win for women.
'Saying we actually don't think they need those protections would be pretty devastating to a workforce that performs really essential work and is very heavily dominated by women, and women of color in particular,' Sanders said.
Last year, the Labor Department finalized rules that provided protections to migrant farmworkers who held H-2A visas. The current administration says most of those rules placed unnecessary and costly requirements on employers.
Under the new proposal, the Labor Department would rescind a requirement for most employer-provided transportation to have seat belts for those agriculture workers.
The department is also proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, hearing or proceeding.
'There's a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work. And with H-2A it's even worse because the employer can just not renew your visa,' said Lori Johnson, senior attorney at Farmworker Justice.
Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, applauded the deregulation efforts, saying farmers were hit with thousands of pages of regulations pertaining to migrant farmworkers in recent years.
'Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months and then be liable for every one of them?' he asked.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Department, wants to rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, saying the regulation doesn't substantially reduce a significant risk.
OSHA said if employers fail to correct lighting deficiencies at construction worksites, the agency can issue citations under its 'general duty clause.' The clause requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards which are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
Worker advocates think getting rid of a specific construction site requirement is a bad idea. 'There have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there's not adequate lighting,' Reindel said. 'It's a very obvious thing that employers should address, but unfortunately it's one of those things where we need a standard, and it's violated all the time.'
Several proposals could impact safety procedures for mines. For example, employers have to submit plans for ventilation and preventing roof collapses in coal mines for review by the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration. Currently, MSHA district managers can require mine operators to take additional steps to improve those plans.
The Labor Department wants to end that authority, saying the current regulations give the district manager the ability to draft and create laws without soliciting comments or action by Congress.
Similarly, the department is proposing to strip district managers of their ability to require changes to mine health and safety training programs.
The general duty clause allows OSHA to punish employers for unsafe working conditions when there's no specific standard in place to cover a situation.
An OSHA proposal would exclude the agency from applying the clause to prohibit, restrict or penalize employers for 'inherently risky professional activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.'
A preliminary analysis identified athletes, actors, dancers, musicians, other entertainers and journalists as among the types of workers the limitation would apply to.
'It is simply not plausible to assert that Congress, when passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, silently intended to authorize the Department of Labor to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale show at SeaWorld,' the proposed rule reads.
Debbie Berkowitz, who served as OSHA chief of staff during the Obama administration, said she thinks limiting the agency's enforcement authority would be a mistake.
'Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they'll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have,' Berkowitz said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he is not seeking summit with Xi, but may visit China
(Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he was not seeking a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but added that he may visit China at Xi's invitation, which Trump said had been extended. "I may go to China, but it would only be at the invitation of President Xi, which has been extended. Otherwise, no interest!," Trump said on Truth Social. Aides to Trump and Xi have discussed a potential meeting between the leaders during a trip by the U.S. president to Asia later this year, sources previously told Reuters. A trip would be the first face-to-face encounter between the men since Trump's second term in office, at a time when trade and security tensions between the two superpower rivals remain elevated. While plans for a meeting have not been finalized, discussions on both sides of the Pacific have included a possible Trump stopover around the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea or talks on the sidelines of the October 30-November 1 event, the people said. The third round of U.S.-China trade talks taking place in Stockholm this week may lay the groundwork ahead of a leaders' summit in the autumn, analysts say. A new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely impact any plans for a meeting with Xi. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Yikes': Critics Claim Trump Let Out Epic 'Freudian Slip' About Jeffrey Epstein
President Donald Trump on Monday denied ever visiting a private island belonging to late sex offender and his former friend Jeffrey Epstein. But Trump's critics are focusing on two unusual words he used when describing a potential trip to the infamous island: 'the privilege.' Trump was asked about why he kicked Epstein out of his private club some two decades ago, after the two had a falling out and before Epstein's first conviction in 2008. The president called it 'such old history' and said Epstein 'did something that was inappropriate.' The 'inappropriate' behavior was hiring some of Trump's staff. 'He stole people that work for me,' Trump said. 'I said, 'Don't ever do that again.' He did it again, and I threw him out of the place. Person non grata. I threw him out, and that was it. I'm glad I did.' But then he added unprompted that he never visited Little Saint James, Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and one alleged scene in his child sex trafficking operation. 'And by the way, I never went to the island,' Trump said, while accusing others of doing so. 'I've, I never had the privilege of going to his island.' The island is just one of the homes owned by Epstein; many of the abuse allegations the late financier was charged with took place in Palm Beach, Florida, as The Miami Herald reported in 2018. 'Authorities suspect that he molested hundreds of girls over a five- or six-year period in Palm Beach alone and possibly operated an international sex-trafficking organization around the world,' Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown told NPR. And it was the president's two words about the island that drew criticism on social media, with many shocked he would refer to 'the privilege' of visiting it while denying he had done so: They're calling it the most well handled freudian slip in history — Isaac (@GalaxyPeaBrain) July 28, 2025 'I never had the privilege of going to Epstein Island.' - TrumpYikes man. — Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) July 28, 2025 top 3 freudian slip in history? — brandon* (@brndxix) July 28, 2025 Let's get Trump's position on Epstein straight:> Going to the sex-trafficking island would have been a "privilege."> The REAL crime Epstein committed was poaching his man is a monster and a moron. — Adam Mockler🇺🇸🦅 (@adammocklerr) July 28, 2025 I'm so tired, dude. 🙃 If a serial killer Freudian slipped up like this during an FBI interview, they'd call it a confession. He can literally just say whatever he wants, and there will never ever ever ever be consequences. This is fucked up and weird, and nothing will happen. — 🎃☠️ Scarlet Whit🦇🕸 (@WhitneyPuppy) July 28, 2025 This guy sus as hell.. — Rep. Jimmy Gomez (@RepJimmyGomez) July 28, 2025 In this clip, Donald Trump says he 'never had the 'privilege' of going to Epstein Island.'NEVER HAD THE PRIVILEGE?WHAT? — Lucas Sanders 💙🗳️🌊💪🌈🚺🟧 (@LucasSa56947288) July 28, 2025 Today Trump said 'I never had the privilege of going to [Epstein's] island.' So now everyone should be looking into if/when Trump went to the can we all agree that the way Trump said this was beyond disturbing?Don't forget to subscribe: — Scott Dworkin (@funder) July 29, 2025 We live in a world where the sitting president can say 'I never had the PRIVILEGE of going to the evil ass pedophile super rape island' and nobody bats an eye — Wemby Central 👽 (@WembyCentral) July 28, 2025 'I never had the privilege of going to the island' and 'I turned it down' … are in direct conflict. Incredible that these are sentences come one after the not sure I'd call going to an island where crimes against children took place a 'privilege' — Brandon Richards 🐻 (@BrandonRichards) July 28, 2025 Trump on Epstein: I never went to the island. I never had the privilege of going to the island. I turned it — Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 28, 2025 The 'privilege'? — B.W. Carlin (@BaileyCarlin) July 28, 2025 "The privilege" is crazy. — The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) July 28, 2025 'Privilege' — Static (@MightBeStatic) July 28, 2025 All the "best" words: In an insane moment, Donald Trump appears to lament with the most bizarre choice of words, saying "I never had the privilege of going to his island."He called a trip to Epstein's Island "a privilege." — Really American 🇺🇸 (@ReallyAmerican1) July 28, 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal Reserve likely to stand pat on rates this week, deepening the gulf between Powell and Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve is expected to leave its short-term interest rate unchanged on Wednesday for the fifth straight meeting, a move that will likely underscore the deep divide between how Chair Jerome Powell and his chief critic, President Donald Trump, see the economy. The Fed itself, to be sure, is increasingly divided over its next steps, and many economists expect that two members of the Fed's governing board — both appointed by Trump — could dissent on Wednesday in favor of cutting rates. If so, that would be the first time two governors vote against the chair since 1993. Even so, the gap between the views of the Fed's interest-rate setting committee, chaired by Powell, and the White House is unusually large. In several areas, Trump's views sharply contrast with that of the Fed's leadership, setting up likely clashes for years to come, even after Powell's term as chair ends in May 2026. For example, Trump says that because the U.S. economy is doing well, the Fed should cut rates, as if the U.S. is a blue-chip company that should pay less to borrow than a risky start-up. But Fed officials — and nearly all economists — see it the other way: A solid economy means rates should be relatively high, to prevent overheating and a burst of inflation. 'I'd argue that our interest rates are higher because our economy's doing fairly well, not in spite of it,' said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of U.S. rates strategy at TD Securities. Trump argues that the Fed in general and Powell in particular are costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments by not reducing borrowing costs. Yet Fed officials don't think it's their job to reduce rates the government pays on Treasury notes and bonds. Most economists worry that if they did, they would risk failing at one of the key jobs Congress gave them: fighting inflation. 'It's using monetary policy to ease pressure on fiscal policymakers, and that way points to higher inflation and bigger problems down the road," said William English, an economist at the Yale School of Management and former senior Fed staffer. If financial markets see that the Fed is focused on keeping borrowing costs low to help the government — rather than focusing on its congressionally-mandated goals of stable prices and maximum employment — Wall Street investors, worried about future inflation, will likely demand higher interest rates to hold Treasury bonds, economists say, pushing up borrowing costs across the economy. For his part, Trump says there is 'no inflation' and so the Fed should reduce its short-term rate, currently at about 4.3%, which was ramped up in 2022 and 2023 to fight rising prices. The Fed's rate often — but not always — influences longer-term borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. Inflation has fallen sharply and as a result Fed officials have signaled they will cut rates by as much as a half-percentage point this year. Yet it has picked up a bit in the last two months and many of those policymakers, including Powell, still want to make sure that tariffs aren't going to lift inflation much higher before they make a move. Inflation accelerated to 2.7% in June from 2.4% in May, the government said earlier this month, above the Fed's 2% target. Core prices, which exclude the volatile food and energy categories, rose to 2.9% from 2.8%. Last week, Trump and several White House officials ramped up their attacks on Powell over rates. They also criticized the ballooning costs of the Fed's renovation of two of its buildings, raising questions over whether the president was looking to fire Powell for cause rather than policy differences. Trump and Powell engaged in an extraordinary on-camera confrontation over the cost of the project during Trump's visit to the building site last Thursday. On Monday, Trump was more restrained in his comments on the Fed during a joint appearance in London with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "I'm not going to say anything bad,' Trump said. 'We're doing so well, even without the rate cut.' But he added, 'a smart person would cut." Some economists expect that the Fed will reduce its key rate by a quarter-point in September, rather than July, and say that the two-month delay will make little difference to the economy. Yet beyond just the timing of the first cut, there is still a huge gulf between what Trump wants and what the Fed will even consider doing: Fed officials in June penciled in just two reductions this year and one in 2026. They forecast that their key rate will still be 3.6% at the end of next year. Trump is pushing them to cut it to just 1%. 'That's not going to happen with anything like the current people on the committee,' English said. Wall Street investors also expect relatively few cuts: Two this year and two in 2026, according to futures pricing tracked by CME's Fedwatch. According to the Fed's projections, just two officials in June supported three cuts this year, likely Trump's appointments from his first term: governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman. Waller gave a speech earlier this month supporting a rate reduction in July, but for a very different reason than Trump: He is worried the economy is faltering. 'The economy is still growing, but its momentum has slowed significantly, and the risks' of rising unemployment 'have increased,' Waller said. Waller has also emphasized that tariffs will create just a one-time bump in prices but won't lead to ongoing inflation. Yet most Fed officials see the job market as relatively healthy — with unemployment at a low 4.1% — and that as a result, they can take time to make sure that's how everything plays out. 'Continued overall solid economic conditions enable the Fed to take the time to carefully assess the wide range of incoming data,' said Susan Collins, president of the Boston Federal Reserve. 'Thus, in my view, an 'actively patient' approach to monetary policy remains appropriate at this time.' Christopher Rugaber, The Associated Press