Editorial illustration
The administrative state just scored a win, and it stings. A federal appeals court in Richmond has blocked the Trump administration from firing 19 intelligence officers who were assigned to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs — the kind of bureaucratic initiatives that sound benevolent on paper but often function as ideological enforcement mechanisms in practice.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction requiring the CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence to give these officers a chance to be reassigned rather than terminated. The plaintiffs, identified only as “John Does 1-6” and “Jane Does 1-5,” claimed they were unfairly targeted simply for their prior DEIA assignments. And the court agreed — at least for now.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Nicole Berner, a Biden appointee, leaned heavily on the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. “Among the promises of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment is the requirement that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” she wrote. The CIA officials, she concluded, were deprived of that due process when they were fired without adequate opportunity to appeal or seek reassignment.
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. These aren’t whistleblowers exposing corruption. These aren’t agents who refused unlawful orders. These are career intelligence officers who were assigned to DEI programs — programs that the Trump administration has made clear it wants to dismantle root and branch — and who are now claiming protected status because of those assignments.
The named defendants tell you everything about the stakes: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Both were appointed by Trump to clean house, to root out the ideological rot that’s infected American intelligence agencies, to return these institutions to their core mission of protecting American security rather than advancing progressive social engineering. And both just got their hands slapped by a federal court.
Does this mean the administration can’t ever fire these officers? Not necessarily. The injunction requires the agencies to provide an opportunity for reassignment and internal appeal — procedural steps that, in theory, the administration could still navigate. But the message from the Fourth Circuit is unmistakable: the judiciary will not simply defer to the executive branch’s personnel decisions, even when those decisions involve eliminating positions that the administration considers wasteful, ideologically motivated, or contrary to national security priorities.
This is the paradox of the Trump presidency in miniature. Voters elected him to drain the swamp, to dismantle the DEI bureaucracy, to restore merit and mission-focus to federal agencies. But the swamp has lawyers, and judges, and procedural defenses that stretch on for years. Every termination becomes a lawsuit. Every policy change triggers an injunction. The administrative state doesn’t need to win every battle — it just needs to slow things down until the clock runs out.
The dissenting judge hasn’t released an opinion yet, but you can imagine the counter-argument: federal employees don’t have a property interest in their specific assignments, the executive branch has broad authority over personnel matters, and requiring the CIA to retain officers in positions the director considers unnecessary or counterproductive undermines the chain of command. Those arguments didn’t carry the day in Richmond, but they might resonate higher up the judicial ladder if the administration appeals.
For now, 19 intelligence officers who were on their way out are back in limbo. The DEI programs they staffed may be officially disbanded, but the people who ran them remain on the payroll, protected by federal courts, waiting for their next assignment. The swamp, it turns out, is harder to drain than it looks. But that doesn’t mean the effort was wrong — only that it was always going to be a fight.
About The Author
