Trump dealt a court blow in effort to oust intelligence officers from DEI roles

A federal judge has slowed down President Donald Trump's bid to remove all federal intelligence officers who had been assigned to diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, projects, Politico's Josh Gerstein reported on Monday, in yet another setback in court for the president.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, had briefly put a block on firings of CIA workers in February, but soon lifted it, saying that while he personally found the firings distasteful, the court did not have recourse to review these decisions if high-ranking officials deemed it to be in the national interest.

However, in his latest order, Gerstein reported, Trenga said the workers must remain on administrative leave rather than be immediately fired and "said [the fired workers are] entitled to appeal within their agencies and seek reassignment to other jobs."

ALSO READ:'Not much I can do': GOP senator gives up fight against Trump's tariffs

Right-wingers have crusaded for years against DEI policies, which are intended to foster the acceptance and inclusion of perspectives and ideas from racial minorities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Trump has moved not only to squash any DEI policies in the federal government but to issue executive orders threatening and targeting funding to various non-governmental agencies, including white-shoe law firms and research universities, that may have such policies.

This comes after a separate federal judge in Maryland blocked parts of a far-reaching executive order Trump signed calling for the termination of all DEI-related grants and contracts, and a mandate that any contractor doing business with the federal government certify they do not use DEI in their own workplace.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, found that the order should be suspended while litigation against it advances, as there is credible reason to suppose it violates the First Amendment.