Overview
The federal government is rapidly hiring up to 1,200 new diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) employees, with some earning salaries exceeding $300,000 annually. These positions, embedded into the permanent federal workforce, are being filled before the incoming administration has a chance to influence hiring decisions.
Why It Matters
Taxpayers will fund DEI policies and initiatives that may not align with the incoming administration’s goals, with little opportunity for oversight or redirection.
Who It Impacts
This impacts federal employees, taxpayers, and future administrations, particularly in how government resources are allocated and who controls policy direction.
Federal Workforce Expands DEI Hiring Ahead of Incoming Administration
As the current administration approaches its final days, federal agencies are moving quickly to fill up to 1,200 diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) roles, according to a Daily Wire analysis of federal job postings. These positions, which offer annual salaries as high as $310,000, could collectively add $160 million to taxpayers’ annual payroll burden. Many of these jobs are being filled before the new administration can influence hiring decisions, embedding the DEI agenda into the federal workforce for years to come.
Within just ten days following the presidential election, 33 DEI jobs were posted on USAJobs.gov, the federal employment portal. Notable among these is a high-level Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health position at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Advertised with a salary of up to $221,900, this role promises to promote “health equity” and ensure that agency programs reflect workforce diversity principles. Applications for this position closed on November 29, and the Biden-led HHS is reviewing candidates ahead of the Trump administration’s inauguration.
Other federal agencies are advertising similar roles with significant pay scales. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for example, seeks a Director for its Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, a position that comes with a $310,000 salary and telework options. This role will oversee the development and execution of the FDIC’s DEI strategic plan and advocate for DEI policies across the agency. Another $310,000 FDIC position involves directing Equal Employment Opportunity and DEIA initiatives, including employee performance and development programs.
Several other agencies have followed suit. The Department of Homeland Security posted a Deputy Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity position, focusing on shaping civil rights policy. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is hiring a supplier diversity officer, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeks a senior-level diversity manager. Each of these positions pays six figures and will influence policy well into the next administration.
The Pentagon has also joined the hiring spree. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), an organization focused on diversity education, recently advertised for a social media specialist earning up to $113,800 annually. DEOMI’s activities include producing promotional materials, managing its website, and highlighting initiatives such as National American Indian Heritage Month.
While these positions offer lucrative salaries, many critics question the timing and necessity of such hiring. For instance, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission listed a “diversity data analyst” role earmarked for recent graduates with a starting salary of $88,926—significantly higher than the national median household income. Taxpayers are expected to fund these roles even as a new administration may not support their objectives.
These rushed hiring efforts have sparked broader concerns about accountability and oversight in federal spending. Critics argue that these positions allow unelected officials to push policy agendas with little input from elected leaders. With job responsibilities often vague—such as “promoting health equity” or “defending budget requests”—the impact of these roles on government efficiency and policy priorities remains unclear.
One particularly glaring example comes from DEOMI itself. The institution’s website, which boasts about its diversity initiatives, suffers from technical glitches, and its projects, such as promotional videos and educational posters, have raised questions about value for taxpayer dollars.
The rush to finalize these hires underscores a larger concern about the politicization of federal agencies. By embedding permanent DEI roles into the bureaucracy, current policymakers are solidifying long-term agendas that may not align with future leadership. The timing, coming just before a change in administration, leaves little room for debate or redirection.
