On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump wasted no time in his first 24 hours in office, issuing a memorandum that ended federal remote work arrangements for millions of government employees. This decision pleased many Republican lawmakers, who had introduced bills to monitor or reduce remote workforces, as well as Trump’s corporate supporters who had implemented their own in-person work requirements in the past year. Despite experts highlighting the benefits of telework, the new leader established a strict stance against it with return-to-office mandates.
These actions, combined with reductions in the federal workforce, were applauded by supporters of the return-to-office policy for increasing productivity and cutting costs. However, few acknowledged that these decisions would disproportionately affect vulnerable workers.
Katy Neas, president and CEO of disability rights organization The Arc, expressed concern that federal employees with disabilities were losing their jobs due to the new policy. She highlighted that the federal government had been a place where people with disabilities could thrive due to benefits like health insurance and accommodations for success in the workplace.
The federal government has historically employed a high percentage of people with disabilities, and many individuals sought out these positions for stable health coverage before the Affordable Care Act. Dan Stewart, managing attorney for the National Disability Rights Network, pointed out that people with disabilities face lower employment rates overall and are more likely to be self-employed or work part-time. However, the shift to remote work during the pandemic led to increased productivity and higher wages, resulting in a rise in employment for people with disabilities.
The pandemic also shifted workplace accommodation processes for workers with disabilities, making it easier for individuals to request remote work options. Neas emphasized the importance of recognizing unique needs in the workday and the positive impact of remote work on workers with disabilities. Stewart highlighted the economic benefits of including workers with disabilities in the workforce and emphasized the importance of remote work as a tool to achieve societal goals of employment.
Overall, the decision to end remote work arrangements in the federal government could have significant implications for workers with disabilities and the economy as a whole. As the average age of American workers increases, a greater percentage of the labor force will require disability-related accommodations in their lifetimes. Mashable Top Stories
“It’s crucial to recognize individuals with disabilities as valuable, contributing members of not only local communities, but also the national economy — to view them as possessing significant untapped social and economic capital that is at risk due to the various cuts we are witnessing,” stated Stewart. Diverse workforces, consisting of women, parents, caregivers, and workers with disabilities, are facing a tougher workplace environment amidst the backdrop of the “great return.” Despite the celebration of the 35th anniversary of the ADA this year, people with disabilities may be encountering new accessibility challenges.
The impact of challenging workplace accommodations
While many workplaces have embraced remote hybrid work, the future of telework remains uncertain, and the recent push for federal RTO policies is not the first assault on remote work that has concerned disability advocates. In 2023, as companies like Amazon and Google transitioned back to in-person work, disability rights groups argued that this change would disproportionately impact workers with disabilities who required additional transportation and workplace accommodations. Many fear that mandatory in-person work could lead to an increase in workplace discrimination or ableist micro-aggressions. The elimination of universal remote work policies may also unfairly target employees in need of accommodations, facilitating surveillance that could make it easier to identify and potentially discriminate against workers with disabilities.
More recently, Amazon altered its disability policies, making it harder for employees to obtain remote work exemptions as part of disability accommodations. A broad rollback of such protections, combined with the anti-DEI narrative promoted by the Trump administration, could revive discriminatory or even segregationist policies that confine workers with disabilities to specific, low-skilled jobs, undoing years of progress towards integration into the mainstream workforce. The removal of universal remote work policies may also unfairly isolate employees requiring accommodations — a form of monitoring that could facilitate the targeting of workers with disabilities. This behavior could also negatively impact students with disabilities, as criticism is directed towards the Department of Education.
The Trump administration has made little effort to reinforce the country’s existing commitments to its disabled citizens, instead introducing an extensive anti Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) agenda, as part of a series of executive orders directing substantial cuts to federal agencies. The president has reshaped the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into a platform for promoting the anti-DEIA policies of his administration, under the leadership of Trump appointee Andrea R. Lucas.
Legal and civil rights advocates have strongly opposed such measures, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Civil Liberties Union, which have outlined the rights of federal employees with disabilities under the administration’s new directives.
In this scenario, and somewhat ironically, bureaucracy may work in favor of the workforce. “You still have the law,” stated Neas. “With some of these major tech companies requiring employees to be in the office five days a week — the ADA still applies to them. My concern is that we establish these arbitrary standards that must be applied uniformly, when our laws explicitly state that this is the wrong approach.”
However, ultimatums like these, supported by Trump (and federal allies like Department of Government Efficiency leader Elon Musk), aim to reduce the federal workforce, impacting those with limited choices first. “There’s more to come,” warned Stewart. “What concerns me is the lack of funding or staffing for civil rights enforcement at the Office for Civil Rights or at the EEOC. While the laws like the ADA, the IDEA, and Section 504 are still in place, there must be an effective way for people to assert their rights. If administrative options are diminishing or ineffective due to workforce reductions… Justice delayed is justice denied.”
There is still work to be done for those opting to return to work. Federal employees relocating to central offices are facing the repercussions of years of telework, including obsolete infrastructure expenses, such as basic physical accommodations like parking spaces, desks, and even toilet paper. Workers with disabilities, who now rely more on federal protections under laws like the ADA, may encounter additional obstacles.
“We will lose their expertise and confidence,” Neas remarked regarding disabled workers who choose or are compelled to exit the workforce due to new policy decisions. “That brain drain is a significant loss for us all.” Neas and Stewart emphasized that the objective of strengthening a workplace accommodation like remote work is not to impose a one-size-fits-all approach but to provide choice. Amidst the productivity-centric language of the “great return,” there is a growing distrust regarding employer flexibility and care, perpetuating misconceptions about disabled workers and reinforcing social stigma associated with workplace accommodations and perceptions of “laziness.”
“Why do people need accommodations? They require accommodations to perform their jobs,” Neas reiterated.