Well, well, well. It seems in today’s Washington, even intelligence officers with résumés soaked in DEI jargon and bureaucratic buzzwords are now classified as indispensable.
A federal judge has pumped the brakes on the Trump administration’s move to clean house at the CIA and ODNI, where—let’s not sugarcoat this—a bunch of folks working on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” programs were about to be shown the door. The reason? Because apparently, firing someone who’s never been accused of wrongdoing is just too much for the system to handle, even if those same people were brought in during an era that valued identity boxes more than national security.
Judge Anthony Trenga, a Bush appointee no less, decided Monday that, nope, these DEI warriors cannot be dismissed just yet. They get to stay, draw a paycheck, and appeal while the courts figure out whether the CIA and ODNI actually followed their own HR procedures.
The government’s position was clear: these roles were being eliminated under a “reduction in force.” Translation: we’re not saying you did a bad job, we’re just saying your job shouldn’t exist anymore. Seems logical enough, especially when you’re running intelligence operations, not a sociology seminar.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga just blocked the CIA and the Office of Director of National Intelligence from firing employees who worked on DEI initiatives pic.twitter.com/M02Oh7hUmN
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 1, 2025
But logic takes a backseat these days when a judge decides that following agency rules—rules that were probably written back when teletypes were still a thing—is more important than letting national security leadership manage their teams. Trenga said the employees were being let go with “no suggestion of wrongdoing or poor performance.”
Sure, maybe they showed up on time and color-coded their DEI spreadsheets, but last we checked, performance metrics in the intelligence community were supposed to revolve around, say, countering foreign espionage—not how many intersectionality workshops one hosted.
Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, to their credit, tried to invoke rarely used powers to get these people out, citing national interests. That’s a legal tool typically reserved for situations where, say, you’re dealing with a mole or someone who likes to take confidential memos home. But heaven forbid we apply it to ideologically entrenched hires from a previous administration whose main contribution might have been making sure the agency cafeteria offered gluten-free vegan options during Pride Month.
But here’s the kicker: these plaintiffs aren’t just fighting to stay—they’re making themselves out to be the wounded party in some grand moral battle. Their lawyer actually said these people were “defamed” by President Trump’s executive order that called out DEI programs as illegal and immoral discrimination. Defamed.
As in their government-funded, politically flavored roles were so vital to democracy that calling them out has ruined their job prospects forever. Imagine the horror of being labeled expendable in an intelligence agency, where expendability should be part of the job description.
And let’s not gloss over the performance. This isn’t a case of a rogue political firing spree. These folks were put on administrative leave months ago. The agencies even offered internal appeals and alternative positions. But nope—every attempt to restructure, to refocus on mission-critical roles instead of cultural crusades, is now tied up in litigation.
Meanwhile, actual analysts, agents, and field officers continue to work under a system that’s bloated with layers of bureaucrats who wouldn’t know a SIGINT intercept from a sandwich order.
“Marxist Judge’s DEI Power Grab: Why Trump Must Crush This Judicial Overreach”
U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga’s outrageous order blocking the CIA and ODNI from firing DEI hacks is a Marxist power grab dressed up as judicial oversight. This George W. Bush appointee has no… pic.twitter.com/g1i5I2NRPr
— Christopher Calvin Reid (@ReidFirm) April 1, 2025
At this point, it’s hard to tell what’s more disturbing: that the courts are blocking an effort to restore focus in our intelligence agencies, or that the judge openly admitted he’d already hoped the agencies would “just do the right thing” and reassign these folks. This is the kind of moral pleading that belongs in a daytime drama, not a courtroom overseeing matters of national security.
But that’s where we are. Judges tying the hands of intelligence directors. DEI advocates portrayed as martyrs. And a White House trying to put America first being forced to tiptoe through the procedural daisies while career bureaucrats cry foul over lost job titles. If the swamp had a face, it’d be wearing a diversity badge and waiting on reassignment papers.
You can’t drain it when the courts keep plugging the hose.
