ASAP

The First 100 Days of the Second Trump Administration

A Workplace Policy Institute Recap

By Jim Paretti, Maury Baskin, Alex MacDonald, and Shannon Meade

April 30, 2025
16 minute read

At a Glance

Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI) provides an overview of President Trump’s first 100 days in office, highlighting executive actions in six areas impacting employers: immigration; inclusion, equity, and diversity; civil rights and the EEOC; labor law and the NLRB; DOL leadership; and higher education. Each section includes links to more in-depth Littler articles.

President Donald Trump embarked on an aggressive agenda in the first 100 days of his administration, relying largely on executive orders and administrative action that appear designed to test the limit of the executive branch’s authority. Indeed, his extensive record of over 140 executive orders in the first 100 days eclipses the standard set in the early 20th century by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued 99 executive orders in the first days of his administration in 1933, primarily aimed at combatting the Great Depression.

Given historically narrow margins in Congress, it is unlikely that significant legislation will be enacted (a potential exception being an upcoming tax and budget “reconciliation” bill, which may be passed by a simple majority of both houses of Congress but is somewhat limited in its ability to enact substantive policy changes in existing law), so reliance on executive action is not wholly surprising. Equally unsurprising, the administration’s efforts have faced a record number of challenges in court, almost all of which remain ongoing, and some of which have fared better than others.

Key highlights of actions affecting labor and employment policy are discussed below, along with Littler’s analyses. A tracker of all executive orders issued in the first 100 days may be found here. Going forward, Littler will continue to track and report only on executive orders with a labor and employment impact. And of course, Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI) will keep readers apprised of relevant developments in this rapidly changing legal climate.

Immigration

Among President Trump’s earliest executive orders are a series that focused on immigration. One directly affecting employers focuses on illegal immigration and outlines measures to secure the U.S. borders. It emphasizes the need for physical barriers, increased personnel, and the detention and removal of individuals who violate immigration laws. It also calls for the resumption of the Migrant Protection Protocols, adjustments to parole policies, and enhanced international cooperation. The order suspends the use of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) One app to parole or facilitate the entry of otherwise inadmissible persons. Additionally, it mandates the use of DNA and identification technologies and prioritizes the prosecution of border-related offenses. The order's stated goal is to protect national security and ensure the effective enforcement of immigration laws.

Another order suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) due to stated concerns about the country's capacity to absorb large numbers of migrants and refugees without compromising resources, safety, and security. It emphasizes the need for refugees to "assimilate appropriately" and for state and local jurisdictions to have a role in refugee placement. The order mandates a review of the program and requires periodic reports to determine if resumption aligns with U.S. interests. It also revokes a previous executive order related to refugee resettlement and climate change.

A third outlines policies to protect U.S. citizens from individuals who may pose security threats. It emphasizes the need for thorough vetting and screening of all individuals seeking entry into the United States. The order mandates coordination among various federal agencies to identify and address deficiencies in the vetting process, and to take necessary actions to prevent the entry of individuals who may pose risks. It also calls for adjustments to existing regulations and procedures to enhance national security and ensure the proper assimilation of lawful immigrants.

Most recently, on April 28, 2025, the White House issued two more immigration-related orders. The first addresses so-called sanctuary cities. It directs the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to identify states and cities that are obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The order then directs the AG and secretary to develop plans for withholding money from those jurisdictions and instructs them to identify state and local rules that give preferences to foreign-born persons at the expense of U.S. citizens, identifying educational benefits as one example of an unlawful preference. Local employment-discrimination laws may also be affected because some forbid discrimination on the basis of citizenship or immigration status.

The second aims to promote “aggressive” policing, and directs the attorney general to create a “legal mechanism” to offer legal support for police officers who are found liable for misconduct—support that may include indemnification. It also directs more federal resources to local police, including surplus “national security” materials. And most controversially, it directs the attorney general to take legal action against local officials who restrain police by, for example, forbidding police from enforcing specific laws, which could include, most obviously, federal immigration law.

In the wake of these orders, we have seen a significant increase in I-9 audits by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, as well as number of high-profile deportations (largely unrelated to employment-based immigration). To date, so-called “workplace raids” have been less common, but that is very likely a function of limited resources. ICE is still operating under the budget set for it in 2024, although if a reconciliation budget bill is approved by Congress and signed by the president, the agency’s funding may be increased and we may see more aggressive movement on this front.

Littler Analyses:

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Another high-profile priority of the administration has been the elimination of so-called “unlawful DEI” programs, which are not defined in any of the executive orders to date, leaving employers to face a host of unanswered questions and legal uncertainty. Two orders in the first days of Trump’s return to the White House broadly addressed DEI efforts.

The first addressed DEI in the federal government, and terminates DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs within the federal government. It directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the attorney general, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to coordinate the elimination of DEI mandates, policies, and activities. Federal agencies are instructed to end DEI-related offices and positions, review employment practices to focus on individual merit, and report on DEI-related expenditures and activities.

The second was focused in the first instance on government contractors (but ultimately, private sector employers more broadly). It first repealed Executive Order 11246, the 1965 order issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson that established affirmative action requirements for companies doing business with the federal government. It then targets the enforcement of federal civil rights laws and terminates policies that involve race- and sex-based preferences under DEI and DEIA initiatives. The order states that it is intended to promote individual merit and eliminate discriminatory practices in both the public and private sectors. The order directs federal agencies to take steps to end DEI practices in the private sector and to issue guidance to educational institutions on complying with civil rights laws. As discussed in the next section, the EEOC provided “technical assistance” to the public in March 2025 to offer the agency’s views of the metes and bounds of “unlawful DEI.”

Finally, while not directly speaking in terms of “unlawful DEI,” but with regard to non-discrimination law generally, on April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order instructing that federal agencies cease using the disparate impact theory of liability under federal civil rights laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (addressing employment discrimination) and Title VI (addressing discrimination in education). By way of background, disparate impact is a theory of liability under civil rights laws in which a facially neutral practice (for example, a credit check or aptitude test to screen job applicants) has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class of individuals. Unlike disparate treatment liability, which requires proof of intentional discrimination, disparate impact liability arises from the use of a neutral practice and requires no showing of intent to discriminate.

The April 23rd executive order makes clear that the administration is unlikely to pursue investigations or bring new litigation based on a theory of disparate impact liability. Employers are cautioned, however, that unless and until changed by Congress, disparate impact liability is a viable theory of discrimination under Title VII, and while plaintiffs must bring a charge alleging such discrimination to the EEOC in the first instance, they ultimately are able to bring private suit in federal court without involving the EEOC. Moreover, many states impose laws establishing disparate impact liability under their state non-discrimination laws (although the order instructs the attorney general to examine whether any such laws are preempted by federal law or otherwise “have constitutional infirmities that warrant Federal action”).

To date, the administration has offered limited guidance with respect to DEI in the private sector, although we expect such guidance may be forthcoming. Given the rapidly evolving climate around these issues, WPI will keep readers apprised of relevant developments.

Littler Analyses:

Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

On Inauguration Day, President Trump designated then-Commissioner Andrea Lucas (R) as acting chair of the agency. Lucas had served as a commissioner since 2020, and her current term is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2025 (although because of holdover rules contained in Title VII, she may be able to stay in her position until potentially the end of the year and it appears likely she will be renominated for another term). Shortly thereafter, the president removed two of the three Democratic commissioners, leaving the agency without a quorum. This was unprecedented since no sitting commissioner has ever been removed from the Commission prior to expiration of their five-year term. At least one of the removed commissioners is challenging her dismissal in federal court.

In the absence of a quorum, the EEOC cannot move forward on any significant policy changes (either implementing new policies or repealing policies of the prior administration) unless and until successors are confirmed to return the Commission to at least three sitting members. It also limits the agency’s ability to commence high-stakes or high-profile litigation, although routine litigation may still be commenced without Commission approval.

In her first statement as acting chair, Lucas indicated that her priorities will include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination; protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination; defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single‑sex spaces at work; protecting workers from religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism; and remedying other areas of recent under-enforcement.” To date, Acting Chair Lucas has followed through on pressing her policy priorities.

On his first day in office, President Trump also issued an executive order purporting to “defend women from gender ideology extremism.” The order states that it the policy of the United States to recognize only two sexes—male and female—and defines “sex” as each “individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female,” and calls for eradicating “gender ideology,” which, according to the order, “includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.” To implement these positions, the order requires all federal agencies and employees to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to men and women as biologically distinct sexes.” It directs federal agencies to “remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology” and to “cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other messages.”

Shortly thereafter, on January 31, 2025, the EEOC advised that all charges alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity would be sent to national headquarters for review to ensure that they “comply with applicable executive orders to the fullest extent possible.” The agency also indicated that with respect to such charges it will issue a notice of right to sue if asked to by a charging party “as statutorily required.” Finally, the EEOC indicated that the acting chair intends to propose rescission or revision of anti-harassment and other guidance relating to gender identity and sexual orientation that is in conflict with these orders. More recently, media reports have indicated that EEOC staff have been directed to deprioritize any charge alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity, although those same reports indicate that the agency will continue to mediate such charges where mediation is requested and will issue right-to-sue letters if a charging party requests one.

On March 19, 2025, the Commission, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), issued two “technical assistance” documents “focused on educating the public about unlawful discrimination related to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) in the workplace.” Unlike guidance documents, which must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission, a technical assistance document, which does not adopt new policy but applies existing policy to different sets of facts, can be issued unilaterally by the agency’s head. The technical assistance documents include Q&A that addresses both DEI and discrimination, and also provides instructions to individuals as to how they may go about filing a charge of discrimination.

The EEOC’s Q&A document in particular stresses that Title VII does not provide any exception for DEI or “diversity interests” in prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected category, and a general business interest in diversity or equity is insufficient to support any employment decision being made in whole or in part on the basis of a protected characteristic. Both documents set forth the procedures for an employee who claims to have experienced DEI-related discrimination to file a charge and seek an investigation. Additionally, both include examples of what the agencies view as potential actionable discrimination if they take into account an employee or applicant’s race, sex, or other protected category.

Littler Analyses:

The National Labor Relations Board

Also on Inauguration Day, the president designated Marvin Kaplan, the sole sitting Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board, as chair of the agency, which had two other sitting Board members: Gwynne Wilcox (D), who had previously served as chair, and Member David Prouty (D). Shortly thereafter, akin to what occurred at the EEOC discussed above, President Trump terminated Board Member Wilcox’s term prior to its scheduled expiration. Again, this was unprecedented, particularly because under the National Labor Relations Act, Board members are ostensibly removable only for neglect of duty or malfeasance. Member Wilcox has challenged her termination, and her challenge is wending its way through the courts, with her being effectively reinstated and then again removed several times. The lawfulness of removing a Board member prior to the expiration of their term will be a question for the Supreme Court to answer, and many expect the Court to overturn a 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), which held that Congress could lawfully limit certain members of the executive branch with “for cause”-type removal provisions.

The president also removed Biden-era General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, which was less surprising given that then-President Biden removed the sitting Republican general counsel on his first day in the Oval Office, a removal subsequently upheld by courts. Former Board Member Bill Cowan now serves as acting general counsel and has rescinded a number of Abruzzo policy memoranda.

With only two members, the Board now lacks a quorum—that means it is limited in its ability to issue decisions or rules, or otherwise attempt to reverse Biden-era policies unless and until it has a Republican majority. Given that the four years of the Biden administration saw a number of significant sea changes in federal labor law, for many employers this cannot happen soon enough.

Littler Analyses:

U.S. Department of Labor

The U.S. Senate has confirmed the president’s leadership choices for the U.S. Department of Labor, including Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-Deremer and Assistant Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling. Chavez-Dermer’s selection certainly raised some eyebrows, insofar as during her two-year tenure as a congresswoman from Oregon she was one of the most pro-organized labor Republicans to serve in the House. Her nomination was supported by the Teamsters—hardly a usual practice for a Republican secretary of labor, and during her time in Congress she supported the so-called PRO Act—organized labor’s number one legislative priority representing the most dramatic (and pro-union) rewrite of federal labor law in modern history. How her somewhat unorthodox views on organized labor will shape her agenda as secretary remains to be seen.

The deputy labor secretary is more of a known commodity, having served previously as a Republican member of the EEOC and acting and deputy administrator of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD). The deputy secretary of labor serves as the de facto chief operating officer of the DOL, managing an approximately 17,000-person workforce and a $14 billion dollar budget. Further, the deputy manages the politically appointed heads of each agency under the DOL, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, WHD, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), among others.

Littler Analyses:

Higher Education

Institutes of higher education have also faced particular scrutiny in the new administration, with a specific focus on so-called “unlawful DEI” practices and allegations that many universities were insufficient in their response to instances of antisemitism often resulting from conflict over the current war in Israel. In addition, the president has targeted federal funding at a number of high-profile institutions, with some reaching agreements with the administration presumably to preserve their funding, while others have vowed to fight the administration’s effort to target them in court.

Littler Analyses:

Conclusion

If the first 100 days of his administration was any indication of the future, we can expect President Trump to continue to aggressively enact the agenda and mandate for which he claims he was elected. Given that so many of these policy items touch labor and employment law directly (and even more have a ripple effect), readers are advised to remain situationally aware and consult with labor and employment counsel as needed. Littler’s WPI will of course keep readers apprised of developments.