Deregulation in the Workplace: What Employers Need to Know as Federal Protections Recede

On July 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a sweeping deregulatory initiative that rescinds or revises 63 regulations. Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer framed the move as part of a broader effort to eliminate “burdensome and obsolete” rules, asserting that doing so will accelerate job growth and restore employer flexibility. But the DOL is not acting alone.

At the same time, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) is pursuing a parallel track, proposing dozens of rule changes and repeals, including a reinterpretation of key safety provisions. These actions are supported by a centralized federal push through the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, which has taken steps to reduce staffing, strip agency authority, and redefine regulatory priorities across the federal government.

Taken together, these initiatives reflect a coordinated effort to retreat from long-standing workplace protection regulations. While many businesses may welcome a reduction in compliance burdens, the practical effect is not merely cost relief—it is a substantial shift in the federal role regarding worker safety, pay, and civil rights.

What Is Being Rolled Back?

The DOL’s July 1 release offered few specific details about which rules were rescinded, although it emphasized the sheer number of deregulatory actions. The Department promised additional details in the Federal Register. Past moves suggest the scope includes wage and hour interpretations, enforcement practices, and equal employment opportunity provisions.

Earlier this year, the Department suspended investigations under Executive Order 11246, which had required federal contractors to take affirmative steps toward equal employment opportunity. That suspension followed Executive Order 14173, which revoked many long-standing civil rights requirements imposed on government contractors. These developments provide a strong indication that the July 1 rescissions are not limited to outdated reporting rules or clerical redundancies. They likely include protections related to race, gender, and wage enforcement.

Simultaneously, OSHA has initiated its own deregulatory process. In July, the agency published one final rule and 25 proposed rule changes. While some proposals are technical, others have significant implications for the future. For example, OSHA is revisiting its interpretation of the General Duty Clause to limit enforcement against certain workplace hazards that do not fall under a specific standard. It is also seeking to revise or remove rules concerning respiratory protection and illness recordkeeping.

These proposed changes follow the same logic as the DOL rollback: a belief that regulations have become too expansive, vague, or costly. However, reducing specificity and enforcement power in workplace safety leaves much to employer discretion, and may undermine consistent national standards, particularly in hazardous industries.

Centralization of Deregulation: DOGE

The most aggressive structural change comes from a new agency: the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”). Created by executive order in January 2025, DOGE has assumed authority over deregulatory actions across federal agencies. It has already begun dismantling civil rights offices, directing mass layoffs of agency personnel, and initiating reviews of regulations at OSHA, the FDA, the ATF, and beyond.

Of particular concern is the reinstatement of Schedule F, a federal employment classification that strips civil service protections from policy-making roles. This allows agencies to terminate large numbers of staff without adhering to typical due process procedures, thereby reducing internal resistance to policy shifts and accelerating deregulation. On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for these firings to proceed.

The centralization of regulatory rollback under DOGE raises serious legal and practical questions. Without independent agency oversight, rulemaking becomes more opaque and enforcement more erratic. Moreover, DOGE’s structural consolidation may make it more difficult for regulated entities to obtain clarification, guidance, or predictable interpretations.

What Employers Should Do Now

For Florida employers, the path forward requires active monitoring of both federal and state legal developments. While the federal government retreats from enforcement, state agencies may step in to fill the gap, or they may follow suit. Either way, relying on past assumptions about what is required or prohibited is increasingly risky.

Employers should review internal policies against statutory requirements, not just current agency regulatory guidance. The Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and similar laws remain in effect. However, enforcement strategies and interpretive rules are changing rapidly.

Legal counsel should be consulted regarding:

• Whether formerly mandated procedures (such as affirmative action plans or hazard-specific safety programs) remain advisable even if they are no longer required.

• To determine what insurance policies may or may not cover in the absence of federal enforcement.

• To preserve internal records and practices in the event that state or private litigation fills the regulatory gap.

Final Thoughts

The regulatory structure that has governed the American workplace for decades is being rapidly redefined. While this may offer short-term relief from red tape, it also introduces long-term uncertainty. A federal retreat does not eliminate legal risk; it merely shifts the burden to employers to determine what constitutes reasonable compliance in a more complex and fragmented legal environment.

Those legal, reputational, and operational risks are now a matter of inte