Earlier this month, the Trump Department of Labor (DOL) unveiled a sweeping deregulation plan targeting a range of labor protections, including key workplace safety rules. Officials framed the effort as “a push to put the American worker first,” an Orwellian spin on policies that make it easier for employers to endanger their employees and harder for workers to hold them accountable. By weakening rules that protect health, safety, and dignity on the job, the plan is clearly designed to cut costs for employers by shifting risk and harm onto workers.
Undermining OSHA’s General Duty Clause
One of the most significant changes is a proposal to restrict how the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforces its General Duty Clause, which requires workplaces to be “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” The clause functions as a key backstop for OSHA enforcement, empowering the agency to address serious workplace hazards that fall outside the scope of more targeted regulations. The Trump regime wants to limit enforcement of this clause in industries it deems “inherently risky,” such as sports and entertainment, opening the door for employers in other industries to make similar arguments. The proposal echoes Brett Kavanaugh’s 2014 dissent in SeaWorld of Florida v. Perez, where he opposed applying the General Duty Clause after an amusement park trainer’s death, arguing that the risks were inherent to the job.
The COVID-19 pandemic has already shown how employers exploit the notion of “inherent risk” to avoid investing in meaningful prevention and safety measures. The new proposal solicits input on what should be considered inherently risky, opening the door to intense lobbying by industry heavyweights eager to avoid investing in worker safety.
Because no regulation can specify every possible hazard, the General Duty Clause is one of OSHA’s most important enforcement tools. Without the clause’s broad protections, OSHA would be far less able to respond to emerging hazards or to hold employers accountable for known dangers that fall between the gaps of existing rules. Weakening it would undermine worker protections across industries, though the proposal is likely to face legal challenges. Employers already have broad discretion to define what is “essential” to a job and to set workplace norms, especially in non-unionized settings. This tactic mirrors how some employers skirt their obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act by insisting, for example, that lifting 50 pounds is an essential function of an office job, or by declaring that tasks incompatible with accommodations are non-negotiable rather than finding creative ways to make work safer and more accessible.
Downplaying the Ongoing Toll of COVID-19
Speaking of COVID-19, the administration also plans to formally remove COVID-19 emergency reporting rules for healthcare settings from federal regulations and end OSHA’s separate system for tracking COVID-related fatalities and hospitalizations. They would revert to the general reporting standards for workplace hazards, under which employers are only required to report hospitalizations if they occur within 24 hours of the workplace exposure. Reverting to OSHA’s baseline reporting standard would effectively erase most workplace-related COVID cases from the record, since most COVID-related hospitalizations happen several days or even weeks after exposure.
Officials argue that the emergency workplace reporting rules are no longer necessary, equating COVID-19 with seasonal flu and other common diseases. But while influenza and other respiratory illnesses are serious and deserve stronger prevention measures than they currently receive, COVID-19 remains more deadly(especially for seniors), more transmissible, and more likely to cause long-term disability. It continues to kill thousands of people in the US each year. It leaves many more with Long COVID, a devastating collection of chronic symptoms following an acute infection that can impair multiple organ systems. COVID-19 is also associated with increased risks of cardiac events, strokes, and other serious health complications months or even years after infection.
Ending separate COVID-19 reporting undermines our ability to track how and where the virus is spreading in workplaces, particularly in healthcare settings where vulnerable patients may be at risk of exposure. Accurate, up-to-date information about COVID-19 in medical facilities is essential to keeping those settings safe, protecting access to care, and preventing outbreaks that disproportionately harm people already at risk. Rather than abandoning COVID-specific reporting, OSHA should strengthen its surveillance of all infectious hazards and adopt a broader, prevention-focused approach to keeping workers and the public safe.
Ignoring Musculoskeletal Injuries
Another proposal would roll back employer reporting requirements for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), even though these injuries are among the most common and costly workplace hazards. MSDs are not conditions workers simply develop on their own — they are injuries caused or aggravated by poor workplace ergonomics, repetitive motions, heavy lifting, and other physically demanding tasks performed without proper protections.
MSDs are especially widespread in warehousing and transportation, and are the number one cause of injuries among warehousing and “last-mile delivery” workers. These are jobs where inadequate equipment and unsafe work practices routinely put workers at risk. OSHA currently has no dedicated ergonomics standard and relies on the General Duty Clause to cite employers for hazardous conditions. Congress blocked OSHA from issuing an ergonomics rule in 2001 and barred the agency from adopting another similar rule without new explicit legislation. However, dedicated tracking could improve the data necessary for lawmakers to revisit this issue. Eliminating dedicated MSD reporting threatens to further delay progress on one of the most common workplace health and safety issues.
Delaying Heat Protections
Outside of the deregulation plan, there are other indications of the White House’s contempt for worker safety. Amid rising temperatures and a surge in heat-related workplace deaths, the Trump Labor Department has shown little urgency in finalizing OSHA’s proposed heat protections. Under the Biden administration, OSHA drafted a rule with basic safeguards, including access to water, shaded or cooled break areas, and acclimatization protocols when temperatures reach 80°F. At 90°F, the rule would entitle workers to 15-minute breaks every two hours. These modest protections were intended to reduce heat-related illnesses and save lives.
Yet progress has slowed, and the administration’s choice to nominate David Keeling to lead OSHA underscores its disregard for workers’ safety. Keeling previously oversaw health and safety at Amazon and UPS, two companies widely criticized for failing to protect workers from dangerous heat. His nomination reflects the Trump administration’s anti-worker agenda and raises serious concerns about the future of OSHA’s heat protections and other workplace safety initiatives.
At the same time, the administration has already gutted other heat-related efforts, including firing staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Healthwho were focused on protecting farm and construction workers from deadly heat. OSHA’s proposed heat rule has not yet been formally withdrawn, and the agency’s National Emphasis Program for Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards remains in place through April 2026. But without strong leadership and urgency, these protections risk being delayed, weakened, or quietly abandoned, leaving workers exposed to an increasingly deadly threat.
The Trump Department of Labor’s deregulation push is not about putting workers first. It shields employers from accountability, even when their actions lead to injury, illness, or death. From weakening the General Duty Clause to slow-rolling data collection and protections against heat stress and long-term injuries, the Trump regime’s deregulatory push signals a willingness to sacrifice workers’ health and lives for the sake of corporate profit, as if efficiency requires treating workers as though they’re expendable. This is not about clearing away outdated or unnecessary rules. It chips away at the very principle that workers are entitled to safe and dignified working conditions. It signals to employers that cutting corners is acceptable and that the government will look the other way while workers are exploited and then discarded.
The government has shown it is prepared to gut key safety requirements to boost corporate profits. But workplace protections exist because workers fought for them. They are not favors from employers or politicians, but rights that workers won through struggle and sacrifice. The Trump Labor Department’s agenda makes it clear that those rights can be taken away if the working class becomes complacent. Protecting workers’ health, safety, and dignity depends on holding employers and the government accountable and rejecting the notion that preventable harm is simply part of the job.
This first appeared on CEPR.
The post Trump’s Deregulatory Bonanza Leaves Workers Unsafe on the Job appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.