Trump administration aims to roll back more than 60 workplace safety rules

The U.S. Department of Labor has unveiled a sweeping plan to eliminate or revise more than 60 workplace safety and wage regulations, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to scale back federal oversight in the name of economic growth.

The proposed changes span a wide range of industries, from home health care to agriculture, construction, and mining. The agency says many of the regulations are outdated, overly burdensome, or duplicative. But labor advocates and public health experts say the rollbacks could jeopardize worker safety, slash pay, and leave vulnerable populations—especially women and people of color—more exposed to harm.

"The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity," said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer. She described the plan as "the most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government."

What regulations are being targeted?

The backstory:

The regulatory overhaul includes proposals that would reverse or weaken Obama-era protections for millions of workers. Among the most controversial changes is a plan to reclassify home health care workers, potentially stripping them of minimum wage and overtime protections under federal law.

If enacted, the new rule would revert to a 1975 standard, allowing home care agencies to pay an estimated 3.7 million workers below the federal minimum wage and deny overtime—unless stronger state laws apply.

Judy Conti of the National Employment Law Project said her group would fight the proposal, warning that it could revive an era when home care workers logged 50 to 60 hours a week with no overtime pay. "Before those (2013) regulations, it was very common," she said.

Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum defended the move, saying affordable home care helps women balance family and work. "We’re pleased to see the Trump administration moving forward on rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanaging," she said.

Samantha Sanders of the Economic Policy Institute disagreed. "Saying we actually don’t think they need those protections would be pretty devastating to a workforce that performs really essential work and is very heavily dominated by women, and women of color in particular," she said.

What else could change under the proposal?

Dig deeper:

Here’s a closer look at some of the specific rollbacks under consideration:

• Farmworker protections: The Labor Department wants to remove a seatbelt requirement for employer-provided transportation and rescind a 2024 rule protecting migrant workers from retaliation.
• Construction site lighting: OSHA aims to eliminate a requirement for adequate lighting on job sites, saying its general safety clause is sufficient to cite hazards.
• Mine safety oversight: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) district managers would lose authority to require upgrades to ventilation and safety plans.
• OSHA enforcement limits: A new proposal would restrict OSHA’s general duty clause from applying to "inherently risky" jobs in sports and entertainment, including stunt work and live animal shows.

Michael Marsh of the National Council of Agricultural Employers welcomed the farm rule rollbacks, saying farmers are overwhelmed by complex new regulations. "Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months and then be liable for every one of them?" he said.

What they're saying:

Rebecca Reindel, occupational safety and health director at the AFL-CIO, warned that the proposals would worsen already dangerous conditions. "People are at very great risk of dying on the job already. This is something that is only going to make the problem worse," she said.

Debbie Berkowitz, former OSHA chief of staff under the Obama administration, criticized the push to limit enforcement authority. "Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they’ll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have," she told the Associated Press. 

Lori Johnson of Farmworker Justice raised concerns about the loss of retaliation protections for migrant workers, calling the risk of abuse high. "There’s a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work," she said.

What's next:

Each proposed rule must undergo a public comment period and review process before taking effect. Labor advocates are already mobilizing to challenge the rollbacks, while business groups are expected to support them as cost-cutting measures.