>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The plaintiffs, identified only as “John Does 1-6” and “Jane Does 1-5,” claim they are being unfairly targeted for their past involvement in DEIA programs. However, conservatives see this as a necessary and long-overdue step to restore national security by eliminating political activism within intelligence agencies.
President Trump wasted no time upon returning to the White House, signing Executive Order 14151 on his first day in office. The order effectively dismantled DEIA offices across the federal government, calling them “illegal and immoral.” This move sought to end radical leftist hiring practices that emphasized identity politics over merit—a standard that has undermined the integrity of national security operations.
Despite the plaintiffs’ claims of being placed on administrative leave “without cause,” Trump’s administration has made it clear that government agencies should prioritize competence over ideological loyalty. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional rights, arguing that the administration is purging intelligence officers based on perceived political beliefs.
The reality, however, is that DEIA roles served as vehicles for radical leftist policies, injecting identity politics into national security agencies. Many of those now suing were more focused on promoting so-called “equity” than protecting American interests.
On Tuesday, Judge Trenga granted an administrative stay, ensuring that the plaintiffs will remain on paid administrative leave until further court rulings. The judge also set a rapid timeline for legal proceedings, requiring the government to respond by February 20, with plaintiffs having until February 21 to reply. A full hearing on the temporary restraining order (TRO) is scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2025.
Attorney Kevin Carroll, representing the intelligence officials, celebrated the ruling.
“We’re very gratified by the judge deciding to do an administrative stay for a week, basically, while the government answered some of his questions,” Carroll said.
According to Carroll, his clients were instructed over the weekend to report to a visitor center with their official identification—an indication, he claims, of imminent termination. He criticized the move as an overreach of Trump’s executive order.
Just Released: Trump White House Collector’s Bobblehead!
“They say this is to comply with the executive order, which is really dumb because the executive order talks about ending DEI functions. It doesn’t say you have to fire DEI personnel. And nobody is hired into the CIA to be a DEI guy. It’s a rotational duty, like you have in the Army or anywhere else,” Carroll argued. “So, they can simply just reassign these people back to being an analyst or scientist or case officer, whatever they did before instead of firing them. It’s arbitrary and capricious.”
Carroll also criticized the CIA’s justification for the terminations, stating, “The paperwork from the CIA is relying solely on this subsection of the National Security Act, which says the director can do whatever he wants, which the Supreme Court has made clear applies only to national security.”
As the legal battle unfolds, conservatives argue that removing DEIA operatives is a necessary step to ensure America’s intelligence agencies are focused on national security, not leftist social experiments. Meanwhile, Trump’s administration remains firm in its stance that identity-based hiring policies have no place in agencies tasked with protecting the nation.
With the first major court hearing set for February 24, the fight over DEIA’s grip on federal agencies is far from over. The question now remains: will national security take precedence over radical ideology, or will activist judges continue to shield the very bureaucrats undermining America’s intelligence institutions?
