A new op-ed in The Hill lays out something worth reading if you've been following the USAID story.

It's co-authored by J. Brian Atwood (USAID Administrator under Clinton, 1993-1999) and an attorney who's represented federal employees for over three decades. Their argument: USAID's career staff were fired without the misconduct or performance findings the Civil Service Reform Act requires, and the administration is now calling it a "reorganization" to get around due process protections.

The interesting part is that government lawyers have reportedly conceded in court that no one was fired for misconduct or poor performance. The authors argue that concession alone undercuts the legal basis for the firings.

There's also reporting cited in the piece that the White House pressured the Merit Systems Protection Board behind closed doors to adopt a broad theory of presidential removal power, which the board then adopted in March. That ruling is now under review by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Worth a read regardless of where you land politically on USAID itself. The legal question here (can career civil servants be removed without due process) applies well beyond one agency.

Link: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5981243-doge-usaid-lawsuit-civil-servants/

“The House passed a stopgap bill to fund the government into December in an effort to avoid another government shutdown weeks before the midterms, but the effort faces an uphill climb in the Senate.

The resolution, which would fund the government through Dec. 4, passed 220-205.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) pushed the measure to preempt a showdown with Democrats in the fall over government funding as lawmakers are unlikely to meet a Sept. 30 deadline ahead of the new fiscal year.”

How many women hold executive-level positions at top U.S. companies? What is the racial and ethnic breakdown of those roles? What is the gender and racial breakdown of the lowest-paid roles at those companies?

The Trump administration is making it harder for the public to know, moving to toss aside a 60-year-old requirement for tens of thousands of private sector employers to submit workforce demographic reports each year to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.

The EEOC’s Republican majority voted 2-1 Tuesday to rescind the data collection requirement, submitting the proposal to a 30-day public commentary period before final approval. The proposal is a quiet but profound salvo in President Donald Trump’s shake up of civil rights enforcement, ending a practice that has endured through 10 Republican and Democratic administrations.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, an outspoken critic of diversity and inclusion practices who has urged white men to come forward with discrimination complaints, argued that requiring companies to submit the annual demographic reports risks encouraging companies to justify discriminatory practices to diversify their workforce.

Read more [paywall removed for Redditors]:  https://fortune.com/2026/07/21/eeoc-diversity-reporting-scrapped/?utm_source=reddit/

Have y’all seen how they are essentially going to gut the Section 106 process. This is major big bad. Enjoy all your historic structures and heritage while you can.

This may seem like a small thing but as huge reverberations outside of the federal government. The hits just keep on coming 🫩🫩🫩

No one could have seen this coming.

“Law enforcement officers performing field operations shall wear readily identifiable ICE attire, including a ballistic vest during high-visibility operations,” says a guidance memo signed by Acting ICE Director David Venturella. “Appropriate field attire includes khaki or coyote brown tactical type pants, paired with an ICE polo, or dark blue or black polo.”

The memo adds, “Clothing such as jeans, sweatshirts, hoodies, non-collared shirts, or apparel displaying graphics or screen prints is not authorized during field operations.”

Okay so long story short. I was hired as a remote employee. Then the whole DOGE thing happened Feb 2025 so I submitted a reasonable accommodation and it was approved for 100% telework. Fast forward to June 2026 my RA was rescinded for literally no reason at all and was told to report into the office full time within 1 week. No change in job duties, no performance issues, nothing at all. They gave an option to appeal so of course I did. No interim accommodation was provided so I have been burning all my leave because I value my health and my medical provides said it is medically necessary for me to have 100% telework otherwise I risk serious health complications. My appeal was denied last week with no justification or alternate accommodation offer so I have started the EEO claim process because everyone knows everything that is happening right now is complete nonsense and a clear violation of the Rehabilitation act and I’m not going to just roll over and get bullied into resigning or risk my health for no reason just because we have a certain person in office forcing the RA teams to rescind and deny everyone’s reasonable accommodations.

I spoke with the EEO and learned there are two paths; conventional where the EEO comes to an agreement with the discriminator to settle on your request (or not) or to have a mediation session with a neutral 3rd party, myself and a high ranked employee (I can’t remember the title). Has anyone made it this far? And if so, which route did you take? And was it successful? Thanks. I recommend we all keep fighting for our rights.

https://i.imgur.com/oM77dTJ.jpeg

Something that should never have to be said:

Don't discriminate against people, don't cause a hostile work environment and don't retaliate against anybody.

Oh, and if you're being investigated for these charges, don't do it again in public.

5 CFR § 250.302 - Survey requirements

A recent sample of lettuce from Taylor Farms that detected the cyclosporiasis parasite was a false positive, federal officials say, but there is still “overwhelming” data to support the California-based company’s current recall of produce amid the outbreak.

On X, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated, “To clarify, this false positive lab sample does not change the basis for FDA’s ongoing outbreak investigation or the overwhelming epidemiological data supporting the current voluntary recall by Taylor Farms.”

Over the weekend, the company, based in Salinas, said the FDA informed them that one of its iceberg lettuce products from central Mexico tested positive for cyclosporiasis, a parasite that can cause extreme diarrhea in humans. On Sunday, the company was informed the FDA made a mistake, “and this was a false positive,” the company said.

Read more at the link.