The Trump administration has rescinded a historic directive from the civil rights era that explicitly forbade federal contractors from maintaining segregated facilities. This latest action is part of a broader effort to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) initiatives within government operations, prompting significant backlash.
This change regarding segregated facilities was outlined in a memo released last month by the General Services Administration (G.S.A.), the agency responsible for federal property management and procurement. The memo applies to all civilian federal agencies and reflects a series of directives from various agencies aimed at dismantling protections established in the 1960s in accordance with executive orders issued by President Trump concerning race and gender identity. Early in his presidency, Mr. Trump instructed agencies to eliminate what he deemed “harmful” and “wasteful” diversity measures as well as “gender ideology extremism.”
The memo, which surfaced following a report from National Public Radio this week, removes several provisions from the G.S.A.’s Federal Acquisition Regulation, which governs contract solicitations for services and supplies. It noted that the previous wording was “not in alignment with the president’s directives.” Notably, among the omissions is a policy, last revised in 2015, which mandated that federal contractors were prohibited from having “segregated facilities,” including waiting areas, workspaces, restrooms, lunchrooms, and drinking fountains.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to prohibit discrimination and segregated facilities in the United States. However, civil rights advocates fear that Mr. Trump’s campaign against D.E.I. programs has indicated a federal willingness to step back from enforcing these provisions.
Dariely Rodriguez, acting co-chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, stated that the removal of the segregation provision, akin to Mr. Trump’s annulment of a longstanding order by President Lyndon B. Johnson that prohibited discrimination in hiring for government contractors, “dilutes the essential protections that foster equity and inclusion across various sectors, including employment.”
“The actions of the Trump administration are testing our democracy, undermining over six decades of advancements,” Ms. Rodriguez remarked.
“While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is still valid, the effectiveness of laws hinges on their enforcement,” she added.
In a statement to The Times, G.S.A. spokeswoman Stephanie Joseph emphasized that the agency would “continue to ensure compliance among federal contractors with established civil rights laws.” She also noted, “The G.S.A. is dedicated to supporting the president’s aim to streamline the federal contracting process, thereby restoring merit-based opportunities, enhancing efficiency, and reducing costs.”
Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, characterized the measure as “a backward step that risks fostering hostile work environments for women, people of color, and others who have historically faced employment discrimination.”
“We hope that contractors will exercise sound judgment and refuse to reintegrate segregation into workplaces,” she stated. “However, this decision clearly communicates that the federal government is unconcerned should they choose to do so.”
The White House dismissed the criticism as “unserious falsehoods” and “groundless reporting” that undermine Mr. Trump’s pledge to unify the country.
“President Trump remains committed to adhering to the law while reversing the detrimental policies of the previous administration and unlocking prosperity through deregulation,” said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, in a statement. “Under his leadership, businesses will encounter fewer bureaucratic obstacles and enjoy a smoother pathway for collaboration with the federal government.”
The White House contends that Mr. Trump’s executive orders were not targeted at any specific demographic and that agencies have room for autonomy in their implementation. Nonetheless, the repercussions have disproportionately affected policies influencing Black individuals, including the dismissals of employees of color and the erasure of their historical contributions.
