Purging Diversity, Installing Loyalty: Inside Trump’s 2025 Federal Overhaul
This report explores this disturbing pattern. It provides documentation of mass DEI-related firings, forced resignations, and program eliminations.
The Trump Administration’s DEI Clean-Out and the Appointment of Unqualified Loyalists: A Comprehensive Impact Report
By Wilbur Brower
Introduction
In his return to the presidency in 2025, Donald J. Trump initiated one of the most ideologically aggressive restructurings of the federal government in modern American history. Chief among his administration's priorities has been the near-total eradication of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies, public education systems, the military, and even private contractors receiving government funds. Citing DEI as "divisive," "Marxist," and "anti-American," Trump and his allies have moved to dismantle decades of efforts aimed at remedying systemic inequalities and ensuring that historically marginalized populations have a seat at the table.
This purge of DEI is not simply rhetorical. Executive orders, agency directives, and funding restrictions have triggered mass layoffs, forced resignations, and the abrupt cancellation of DEI-related programs and policies. Departments such as Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services have been particularly affected, with experienced civil servants pushed out and institutional expertise lost in a matter of months. In the name of “restoring neutrality,” Trump has targeted not only DEI staff but also career professionals with any perceived progressive leanings, effectively politicizing the civil service.
Simultaneously, Trump has filled top roles in the federal bureaucracy with individuals who, in many cases, lack the experience, qualifications, or integrity traditionally expected of public servants in such positions. Many of these appointments have been made on the basis of personal loyalty, public displays of devotion to Trump, or their willingness to enact the administration's controversial agenda without question. While past presidents have occasionally made political appointments, the scale, audacity, and apparent disregard for competency under Trump 2.0 represents a radical departure from historical norms. This dual strategy, removing qualified professionals under the guise of ideological cleansing while installing loyalists regardless of merit, has deeply unsettled both domestic and international observers.
This report explores this disturbing pattern. It provides documentation of mass DEI-related firings, forced resignations, and program eliminations. It also details some of the most egregiously unqualified individuals appointed to key government posts and considers the long-term damage of such policies on institutional effectiveness, democratic accountability, and public trust in government. The analysis presented is both a chronicle of what is happening and a warning of what could be lost.
DEI Purge: Forced Firings, Layoffs, and Program Eliminations
Executive Actions & Program Eliminations
Executive Orders (e.g. EO 14151, EO 14173, EO 14168) directed dismantling of virtually all federal DEI efforts, rescinding affirmative action requirements, and compelling federal contractors to certify that they do not operate “illegal” DEI programs TIME+2Them+2U.S. Department of Education+2Morrison Foerster.
The Department of Education removed hundreds of DEI-related documents, placed DEI staff on administrative leave, and gradually eliminated those positions U.S. Department of EducationMorrison Foerster.
Over 275,000 federal workers, disproportionately women and employees of color, were targeted in layoffs and reorganization efforts; agencies with higher DEI staffing were hit hardest Wikipedia.
High-Profile Forced Departures
Michael Gordon, a respected federal prosecutor who led key January 6 prosecutions, was abruptly fired without explanation in June 2025—widely seen as retaliation tied to political interference and the DOJ leadership’s purge of DEI-aligned staff.
U.S. inspectors general—independent watchdogs—saw at least 17 abrupt firings in January 2025, bypassing required statutory notification periods, undermining oversight capacity.
At the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, 368 career staffers resigned or retired en masse under new leadership, signaling institutional resistance to a politically driven shift away from civil-rights enforcement.
LGBTQ+ federal workers report hostile targeting: staff involved in ERGs or DEI efforts face surveillance and termination, evoking memories of earlier discriminatory purges.
A $20 million grant for clean drinking water for farmworker communities in California was revoked by EPA administrator Lee Zeldin as “DEI waste,” removing vital environmental and health protections.
Alarmingly Unqualified Appointments & Nominations
Representative Examples
Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defense, lacked relevant national security credentials or senior military leadership experience; critics called the pick “dangerously unqualified” for a position overseeing millions of personnel.
Matt Gaetz, tapped as Attorney General, had zero DOJ experience and was under investigation for sexual misconduct allegations; congressional critics demanded he was “manifestly unqualified”.
Tulsi Gabbard, nominated as Director of National Intelligence, lacked any intelligence-related experience or institutional background, yet was elevated based on political loyalty.
Paul Ingrassia, nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), lacked senior legal or government oversight experience; he expressed disdain for federal employees and supported conspiracy theories, raising concerns over whistleblower protections.
Emil Bove, nominated to the federal appeals court, faced opposition from more than 900 DOJ alumni and 75 retired judges; critics cited actions undermining DOJ ethics and public credibility.
Other watchdog roles have similarly been filled with individuals lacking independence or qualifications—jeopardizing checks and balances in oversight agencies.
Speculation on Lost Expertise & Institutional Damage
Loss of Highly Qualified Personnel
The removal of experienced inspectors general, civil-rights lawyers, and specialized staff represents the loss of institutional memory and expertise, weakening oversight over fraud, abuse, and discrimination—which many argue has real-world impacts on transparency and accountability.
Reassigning or firing staff due to DEI associations likely demoralizes career civil servants and undercuts diversity in government leadership, further centralizing power among political appointees.
Risks from Unqualified Leadership
Agencies led by inexperienced or ideologically aligned individuals may make reckless or politically motivated decisions: e.g., under-enforcement in the DOJ or EEOC, rollback of protections for transgender workers contrary to Bostock v. Clayton County.
A Defense Department without leadership grounded in strategic military experience may neglect global threats or mismanage the enormous civilian-military workforce.
Leadership at the OSC lacking legal oversight credibility threatens whistleblower protections and Hatch Act enforcement—eroding trust among federal employees seeking transparency and ethical governance.
Court nominees such as Emil Bove may reshape jurisprudence with decisions lacking legal rigor or precedent-based reasoning, emphasizing political loyalty over fairness.
Summary
The Trump administration’s post-2025 obsession with rooting out DEI and replacing government professionals with unqualified loyalists is unprecedented in modern American governance. Under the guise of combating "wokeness" and restoring "merit," the administration has gutted entire departments, terminated experienced civil servants, and dismantled longstanding equity initiatives that have helped expand opportunity, protect civil rights, and increase representation in all levels of government.
These firings and resignations, whether in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, or within education, labor, and healthcare agencies, have left gaping holes in expertise and oversight. The deliberate elimination of DEI programs has also deprived millions of Americans of resources and protections intended to create a more inclusive and fair society. Meanwhile, the installation of deeply unqualified and ideologically rigid individuals in high-level positions has compromised agency credibility, weakened decision-making, and eroded morale among career professionals.
The cost to the country is not abstract. By sidelining competent, experienced leaders and replacing them with figures who are often hostile to the very missions of the departments they lead, the Trump administration is weakening the federal government's ability to function effectively. Public health, environmental protections, civil rights enforcement, worker safety, national security, and educational equity are all at risk.
In short, the Trump administration's war on DEI is not just a cultural skirmish—it is a political campaign with tangible consequences. It sacrifices competence for loyalty, equity for ideology, and institutional strength for short-term partisan gain. The long-term effects may include the erosion of democratic norms, further polarization of the civil service, and the degradation of the federal government’s ability to serve all Americans fairly and effectively. This report serves as a call to recognize and resist this dangerous transformation before the damage becomes irreversible.
References
American Progress – “The Trump Administration’s War on Disability” (2025)
BBC / Wikipedia – “2025 dismissals of U.S. inspectors general” (2025)
Harvard Corporate Governance Monitor – “President Trump Acts to Roll Back DEI Initiatives” (2025)
Lawfare – Wittes, “The Situation: The Cult of Unqualified Authenticity” (Jan 14, 2025)
MOFO – “Unpacking the Trump Administration’s DEI Orders and Actions” (2025)
PBS NewsHour – “Trump administration moves to begin cutting all federal DEI staff” (2025)
Reuters – “Trump taps loyalists with few qualifications for top jobs” (Nov 2024)
Reuters – “US Justice Dept civil rights unit faces mass exodus” (Jul 2025)
Politico/AP – coverage of mass firing of inspectors general (Jan 2025)
The Washington Post – “Senate confirms Susan Monarez to lead CDC” (Jul 29, 2025)
The Guardian – “Trump’s ‘stunningly unqualified’ diplomatic team shapes up” (Dec 2024)
Washington Post – “Trump’s pick to protect federal workers shares a disdain for them [Paul Ingrassia]” (Jul 24, 2025)
Washington Post/AP/Politico – story of Michael Gordon firing as retaliation (Jun 2025)
New York Mag – “Trump Fights DEI by Making Farmworkers Drink Polluted Water” (Jul 26, 2025)
Time – “Major U.S. Companies Scaling Back DEI as Trump Targets Initiatives” (2025)
AP News – “Civil rights agency sued over handling of transgender worker discrimination complaints” (Jul 2025)
Government Executive – “Trump’s picks for oversight roles will jeopardize independent scrutiny” (Jun 2025)
Wikipedia – Stephen Moore and Mick Mulvaney background (2025)
Final Thoughts
This twin strategy—sweeping removal of DEI-aligned staff and promotion of ideologically loyal but unqualified appointees—marks a profound shift away from merit-based governance. The long-term impact may include weakened enforcement of civil rights, diminished government capacity, eroded institutional trust, and a less resilient federal infrastructure. The eagerness to centralize control at the expense of expertise poses serious risks to the functioning and credibility of government in the long run.