A divided federal appeals court in the United States has barred the Trump administration from moving ahead with the dismissal of 19 intelligence officers who had been assigned to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEI) programmes, keeping in place a lower court’s order that safeguards their procedural rights.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier injunction directing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to first provide the affected officers with an opportunity to seek reassignment to other positions and pursue internal appeals before any termination could take effect.
Writing for the majority, Judge Nicole Berner said the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process obliges federal agencies to follow their own binding regulations when taking action against employees. According to the ruling, agencies cannot disregard established procedures that protect career personnel from arbitrary dismissal.
The dispute stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump shortly after returning to office in January 2025, directing federal agencies to dismantle DEI initiatives across the government. Following that order, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initiated steps to remove employees who had been working in DEI-related assignments.
The appellate court observed that the officers were terminated without being offered reassignment opportunities or the internal review mechanisms required under agency regulations. The judges noted that such protections remain applicable unless an employee’s access to classified information has been revoked, which was not the basis for these dismissals.
The 19 officers are among 58 CIA and ODNI employees who had been placed on paid administrative leave after being associated with DEI programmes. They continue to remain on administrative leave while the legal proceedings continue.
Counsel representing the officers welcomed the ruling, describing it as an affirmation that intelligence personnel are entitled to constitutional due process protections despite the sensitive nature of their work.
Judge Paul Niemeyer dissented, taking the view that Congress had granted the heads of intelligence agencies broad discretion to terminate employees and that the regulations cited by the majority did not restrict that authority. He argued that the injunction amounted to an unwarranted judicial intrusion into executive decision-making and expressed hope that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately review and overturn the ruling.
