Federal Job Cuts Hit Black Women Hardest in Latest Workforce Data

One year after federal job cuts, Black women lost jobs at disproportionate rates in federal workforce reductions.

Objective Facts

Federal job cuts last year hit one group the hardest — Black women. Black women make up 12% of the federal workforce and experienced the largest federal employment losses between 2024 and 2025. Black women ended 2025 with 113,000 fewer jobs than at the year's start, according to the IWPR report. Layoffs at the federal level hit Black women hardest. Their employment in such roles dropped by more than 30%, whereas it dropped by 11.6% for all women. Black women made up 33 percent of those federal job cuts, despite comprising only 12% of the federal workforce. Many of the departments most targeted for cuts by Trump and DOGE were the ones that had even larger shares of Black women, including the Education Department, where Black women were more than a quarter of workers.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets report that between February and July of 2025, Black women lost 319,000 jobs in the U.S. labor market, while white women saw a job increase of 142,000 and white men saw the largest increase of all groups with a gain of 365,000 jobs. This glaring disparity is attributed to the Trump administration's sweeping cuts of federal jobs—some 300,000 in just one year. Progressive organizations emphasize that the disproportionate impact reflects structural targeting of agencies with diverse workforces. Before federal firings, the Education Department's staff was majority nonwhite with Black women making up about 28% of workers, and that department has seen a reduction of about 46% of its staff. A broad assessment by ProPublica and other media shows the agencies with the most diverse staffs are often the hardest hit. Critics characterize this as a federal government intent on creating a DEI boogeyman to radically change how workplaces operate in ways that disadvantage women, people of color and LGBTQ workers. Left-leaning advocates note that there was an attack on the federal government workforce with the vast majority of jobs lost held by women, and places targeted for job cuts are places where disproportionate numbers of women and people of color, particularly Black women, worked. Critics argue the sweeping changes to the civil service aren't about improving efficiency or service to the American people—they're about undermining the merit-based system of federal employment.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning outlets report that the government's civilian workforce dropped by 12%, with the OPM's data showing the workforce shrank from 2,313,216 to 2,035,344 between September 2024 and January 2026. The majority of employees who left did so voluntarily rather than being forced out, with administrative staff, customer service representatives and IT managers at the top of positions that left. The Trump administration claims to have eliminated illegal and unfair diversity, equity and inclusion programs across government, with approximately 317,000 federal employees expected to exit through voluntary programs and natural attrition, the largest reduction of the federal workforce in American history. The White House released a list of "365 wins" commending the administration's efforts to ensure a merit-based federal workforce, including eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion across government and slashing federal jobs. The right maintains that DOGE has rooted out billions in wasteful spending and claims to have slashed an estimated $214 billion in federal spending as of October. However, even supporters like the Cato Institute acknowledge that while DOGE did not reduce federal spending because most outlays are entitlement-driven, it did help engineer the largest peacetime workforce reduction on record.

Deep Dive

Federal government jobs have historically served as a path to middle-class stability for Black women, who represent 12% of federal employees compared to 6% of the general workforce. Black women comprised large shares of staff in agencies hardest hit—Veterans Affairs, Education, Health and Human Services, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development—where women made up 60% or more of the workforce. At the IRS alone, where Black women comprised nearly a quarter of staff, cuts eliminated more than 25,000 jobs. The cuts began immediately on Trump's Inauguration Day with the end of USAID, followed by a series of deep cuts that affected Black women who disproportionately worked in jobs that were eliminated. Critically, while DOGE did achieve the largest peacetime federal workforce reduction on record, most federal spending remains entitlement-based and did not decrease—raising questions about whether the massive workforce reductions achieved stated fiscal goals. Treasury data shows government spending increased by hundreds of billions of dollars more than the year before, with most going to debt service, national defense, and entitlement programs. The right frames the cuts as necessary efficiency measures driven by managerial concerns about redundancy, while the left argues the pattern of targeting diverse agencies and the elimination of merit-based civil service protections suggests ideological motivation. Economists remain uncertain whether federal and private-sector employment losses targeting Black women represent an early indication of more widespread job losses or casualties of anti-equity backlash.

Federal Job Cuts Hit Black Women Hardest in Latest Workforce Data

One year after federal job cuts, Black women lost jobs at disproportionate rates in federal workforce reductions.

Mar 30, 2026

What's Going On

Left says: The left frames this as a federal government intent on creating a DEI boogeyman to radically change how workplaces operate in ways that disadvantage women, people of color and LGBTQ workers. A broad assessment shows the agencies with the most diverse staffs are often the hardest hit.

Right says: The right argues that reshaping the federal workforce is essential to building a government that works for the American people by realigning roles, streamlining operations, and modernizing how agencies manage talent. DOGE has rooted out billions in wasteful spending, shrunk the bloated federal workforce and spurred a nationwide effort to streamline and economize government agencies.

✓ Common Ground

Voices across perspectives acknowledge that approximately 300,000-335,000 federal workers lost or left their jobs and that Black women make up 12% of the federal workforce, almost twice their share in the overall workforce.

Both sides acknowledge that layoffs at the federal level hit Black women particularly hard, with their employment in federal roles dropping by more than 30%, whereas it dropped by 11.6% for all women.

Analysts across ideological lines have challenged official DOGE savings estimates, with even Elon Musk saying DOGE was only 'a little bit successful' and that he wouldn't do it again.

Even the center-right Manhattan Institute's Jessica Riedl told NPR that meaningful changes to federal spending would require Congressional action and that 'DOGE has created this false perception that the entire budget deficit can be eliminated by going after waste, fraud and abuse.'

MPR News - Black women bore the brunt of federal job cuts Economic Policy Institute - Black women suffered large employment losses in 2025—particularly among college graduates and public-sector workers CNBC - Black women were disproportionately impacted by DOGE cuts. A year later, they're rebuilding careers for themselves and each other Cato Institute - DOGE Produced the Largest Peacetime Workforce Cut on Record, but Spending Kept Rising

Objective Deep Dive

Critically, while DOGE did achieve the largest peacetime federal workforce reduction on record, most federal spending remains entitlement-based and did not decrease—raising questions about whether the massive workforce reductions achieved stated fiscal goals. Treasury data shows government spending increased by hundreds of billions of dollars more than the year before, with most going to debt service, national defense, and entitlement programs. The right frames the cuts as necessary efficiency measures driven by managerial concerns about redundancy, while the left argues the pattern of targeting diverse agencies and the elimination of merit-based civil service protections suggests ideological motivation. Economists remain uncertain whether federal and private-sector employment losses targeting Black women represent an early indication of more widespread job losses or casualties of anti-equity backlash.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets employ language of systemic harm and deliberate targeting, using phrases like "under attack," "exclusion," "canaries in the coal mine," and "racialized and gendered" impacts to frame the cuts as part of a pattern of discrimination. Right-leaning outlets emphasize managerial language like "efficiency," "accountability," "merit-based," and "streamlining," focusing on voluntary departures and waste elimination without centering demographic disparities. The left's narrative highlights structural inequity while the right's narrative emphasizes fiscal responsibility.

✕ Key Disagreements

Causation of disproportionate impact on Black women

Left: The left argues that agencies with the most diverse staffs were often the hardest hit—Education Department was 46% cut versus 1% at Justice Department, which is two-thirds white and mostly male. This suggests intentional targeting of diverse agencies.

Right: The right argues that most departures were voluntary and that administrative staff and customer service positions—not specifically race-targeted—were eliminated as part of routine efficiency measures.

Whether cuts were merit-based or politically motivated

Left: The left notes the administration published hiring guidelines requiring applicants to 'Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you' and argues 'That should concern anyone worried about improper loyalty tests being given for federal workers.'

Right: The administration argues Schedule Policy/Career designation aims to improve employee accountability and give agencies the ability to remove employees who perform poorly or 'obstruct the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives.'

Actual savings achieved by DOGE

Left: Critics cite a Politico analysis finding DOGE cut only $1.4 billion in actual spending and that more than one-third of DOGE's contract cancellations yielded no monetary savings at all. A Senate minority report found DOGE generated at least $21.7 billion in waste across the federal government.

Right: The DOGE website says it has saved about $215 billion through job cuts, contract and lease cancellations and asset sales. DOGE claims to have slashed an estimated $214 billion in federal spending.

Impact on government capability and services

Left: The Intercept reports that staffing problems caused by DOGE resulted in the Defense Information Systems Agency warning of 'extreme risk for loss of service' across the military, with the unit responsible for maintaining secure channels keeping the Pentagon connected to military assets around the world hobbled by cuts.

Right: Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, House subcommittee chair, argued that DOGE cuts only eliminated waste and did not impact the country's ability to respond to war, stating 'We put more money into helping our allies confronting our adversaries' and 'What we did is we got rid of all this trash that was there.'