As of May 12, 2025, President Donald J. Trump had signed 152 executive orders (EOs)—a record for any U.S. president during their first 112 days in office (Peters & Woolley, Reference Peters and Woolley2025). These federal-level policy shifts have prompted various cascading effects and responses at state and local levels (e.g., John, Reference John2025; Mahtesian, Reference Mahtesian2025). Many EOs and proposed policy changes across levels have direct implications for labor and employment in the United States, and the frenetic release and implementation of these policies has prompted new uncertainties and questions for the science and practice of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Whether reshaping workplace diversity initiatives and employment protections to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) and modifying labor standards, these policy changes have the potential to redefine how organizations function and how I-O psychologists conduct research, advise organizational stakeholders, and implement interventions. This special issue aimed to document a range of these potential policy implications for the field of I-O. Moreover, I-O psychologists are not only parties affected by these policy changes but also leading experts on work and workers. This issue is aimed, accordingly, to present various I-O analyses of and proposed responses to the current landscape of relevant U.S. policy changes. Through these accounts and their recommendations, we hope I-O psychologists, trainees, and organizations can orient to, understand, and adapt to policy change in an empirically and ethically sound manner.
In the following sections of this editorial, we first discuss the topics covered in this issue’s policy brief commentaries in greater detail, synthesizing key themes and perspectives on various interrelated policy changes. We organize the policy briefs into four areas, including those discussing policy related to (a) workplace settings and environments, (b) human resource management (HRM) processes, (c) worker perceptions and identities, and (d) higher education and training. Then, we explore additional considerations for I-O psychologists reading this special issue, highlighting the ongoing and dynamic nature of this turbulent political climate as well as its wide-reaching effects. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for I-O psychologists in supporting themselves, their colleagues, and the organizations and systems in which they work—in the coming months and years of this administration and beyond.
Policy topics
Workplace settings and environments
Several submissions considered the impacts of changing policy on the workplace itself or the work setting, broadly defined. Responding to contemporary changes to the setting in which work is completed, largely influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, research has responded by considering the dimensions of the remoteness of work (Leonardi et al., Reference Leonardi, Parker and Shen2024). Workers rely on opportunities for remote work variously (e.g., workers with remote-friendly jobs and workers with barriers to office access), and, therefore, return to work policies mirror this varying impact. Two policy briefs within this special issue focus their consideration on return to office (RTO) initiatives and its potential for restricting worker flexibility.
First, Kalmanovic-Cohen (Reference Kalmanovich-Cohen2025) considers the equity implications of RTO policy, which will likely disproportionately affect vulnerable workers such as those with disabilities, those with child or eldercare responsibilities, and working parents. The second policy brief, Allen et al. (Reference Allen, Lezcano and Schoffel2025) echoes these concerns and adds that such RTO policies are based on an ignorance of research on productivity and remote work. Both briefs consider RTO policies to be a step backward, emphasizing organizational preferences for a workforce made up of “ideal” workers (i.e., those fully devoted to their work and workplace, and constantly available). This regression has implications for both workers and I-O psychologists. The briefs outline potential changes to organizational culture, employee well-being, and opportunities for career developments a result of RTO policy changes.
HR processes
Four policy briefs focus broadly on how work gets done within HRM functions. These evaluations identify unique and interrelated HRM features and processes (e.g., talent management; employee selection; diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; and employee benefits) that are affected by proposed or enacted policy changes. First, Chao and Zhu (Reference Chao and Zhu2025) examine a series of EOs, beginning with the Trump administration in 2019, through President Biden’s term, and concluding with the beginning of Trump’s second term in 2025. Although all three administrations passed actions to advance the use of AI, Chao and Zhu deem the current administration’s actions to have negative implications for talent management within organizations. Of note, I-O psychologists could anticipate an incoming wave of employee turnover and a lack of long-term career development opportunities for the workforce.
Second, Keith and colleagues (2025) evaluate a recent EO titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which has been instrumental in dismantling DEI efforts. This brief provides context for how affirmative action has been enacted in the United States and its origins within the context of the Civil Rights Act (1964). Although the current EO cannot allow for discrimination, it does create barriers to identifying instances of such discrimination. The brief thoughtfully articulates a counterargument to those promoting “merit-based” selection systems, arguing that those systems are biased and that criticisms of affirmative action programs are not supported by science and research. Similarly, Garcia and colleagues (2025) deeply evaluate an EO that intends to exacerbate the perceived divide between DEI initiatives and “merit-based” systems. Beyond an understanding of the bias associated with “merit-based” systems (Keith et al., Reference Keith, Strah and Sorensen2025), such systems lack theoretical and empirical evidence to support their widespread use in the United States (Garcia et al., Reference Garcia, Dhanani and Wiese2025). Together, these briefs provide a cohesive summary of how the current political climate is attempting to weaponize DEI in favor of a less scientifically supported and more biased approach in practice.
The final brief in this section considers employee benefits, particularly the (in)accessibility to abortion care under new proposed policy (Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, French, Escudero, Casper, Vaziri and Gardner2025). Considering an understudied topic within I-O psychology, this brief suggests strategies for our field to be fierce advocates for continued abortion access and care for U.S. workers. Strategically, the authors suggest that I-O psychologists can, in both science and practice, create tangible links between organizational success, employee well-being, and HRM policy to aid in the promotion of maintaining necessary employee benefits, such as abortion access.
Worker perceptions and identities
Although each brief discusses a variety of worker populations affected by their reviewed policy changes (e.g., disabled workers, caregivers, women, workers of color, and LGBTQ+ workers in Allen et al., Reference Allen, Lezcano and Schoffel2025), a few authors focused on how specific worker groups’ perceptions and identities stand to be shaped policy change. First, Bazzoli and Probst (Reference Bazzoli and Probst2025) explore job insecurity among recently reclassified “at-will” federal employees, highlighting the effects of the EO entitled “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce.” In their brief, they consider how this policy change and reinstated employment classification subjects the federal workforce to greater job insecurity and economic precarity, violated employment and psychological contracts, and various other adverse consequences across levels and over time.
Fletcher and Stephenson (Reference Fletcher and Stephenson2025) also consider a specific worker group’s experiences in the wake of deregulation and defunding, exploring how recent policy shifts enable greater employment of minors in U.S. workplaces. Their brief focuses on multiple enacted and proposed policies related to public education and child labor protections, and they consider the implications of these changes for workplace safety and organizational research, among others. Finally, Jaramillo et al. (Reference Jaramillo, Bogart and Dhanani2025) center on the experiences of transgender, nonbinary, and other gender nonconforming people at work in the wake of EOs aimed to redefine sex, gender, and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. They consider the effects of such changes on discrimination and mistreatment, identity concealment, health, and more for gender-diverse workers in and outside of the federal workforce.
Higher education and training I-O psychologists
The experiences of I-O students, trainees, and academics are also impacted by recent policy shifts, with institutions of higher education and their funding bodies undergoing massive changes that stand to shape the future of I-O education and academia. Bowker (Reference Bowker2025) discusses these topics with a focus on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility-related policy issues, highlighting various EOs and their effects on research funding, mentorship, curricula, and faculty retention, among other areas. This brief highlights the interrelated nature of many policy changes and their potential to restrict and weaken I-O graduate education and training. Cobb and Burke (Reference Cobb and Burke2025) complement Bowker’s brief, centering on I-O psychology professors’ role in engaging with policy shifts in the classroom and calling on I-O teachers to incorporate contemporary policy in their course discussions and activities. They provide many insightful ideas to this end, discuss the importance of promoting science advocacy and the implementation of evidence-based practice in organizations during I-O training, and present ways that faculty can remain up to date and reduce discomfort while navigating complicated times.
Last, Keith and Zickar (Reference Keith and Zickar2025) consider both federal and state-level policy change and their restrictions on academic freedom, including limits on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, topical coverage in curricula and classroom instruction, tenure protections, and collective bargaining. They discuss various points from the American Association of University Professors as part of their brief, reviewing the implications of restricted academic freedom for I-O faculty and the training they can provide to students.
Additional considerations
Although many policy shifts are covered by the briefs in this special issue, we also want to highlight a few considerations that further contextualize these topics. First, it is important to note that those vulnerable to adverse effects or inequities associated with policy shifts were less likely to be able to contribute to this conversation. In other words, there are various missing or less-covered topics in this special issue (e.g., policy effects on migrant workers, including immigrant and undocumented workers; rollbacks of disability-related protections; federal agency reorganization and disintegration; tariffs). The very sociopolitical climate upon which this special issue focuses may have suppressed voices on these and other subjects. We, as co-editors, heard from multiple individuals who were interested in submitting to the special issue but were deterred from doing so by their mentors, organizational leaders, or even their company’s legal departments considering current political climates. Without a doubt, threats to academic freedom, publication censorship, fear of disclosure, and witnessed or experienced layoffs and job loss, among other phenomena, limited some from responding to our call for policy briefs. We respect their risk assessments and decisions, yet we are sorry to not have their perspectives represented herein. We hope they are continuing conversations elsewhere.
We also want to call attention to the dynamic, intricate, and ongoing nature of the policy shifts discussed in this issue. All signs point toward policies across levels continuing to be changed, challenged, and rewritten, and we anticipate that the landscape will only become more complex and muddier in the coming months and years. Moreover, as many of the brief authors discuss, the policies presented in this issue are interrelated and are likely to continue to interact over time in complicated, unpredictable, or uncontrollable ways. Policies about federal workers and agencies have and will continue to shape organizations outside of the public sector; vulnerable workers will likely experience compounded effects and precarity as policies and their applications accumulate; workers, workplaces, and economies outside of the U.S. will be affected and respond accordingly. This general environment of uncertainty, restriction, and deregulation could easily beget preemptive compliance, fear, and avoidance. We suggest, however, that this is not the only path.
Recommendations
The policy briefs published in this special issue provide extensive and relevant recommendations for I-O psychologists both in research and practice. Here, we provide a summary of these recommendations and identify key themes across them (Table 1). Generally, recommendations focused on maintaining and increasing practitioners’ sense of worker-centered interventions and those promoting worker flexibility and well-being. Largely, we consider these to be indicative of a need for thoughtful, individualized consideration of worker, or group, needs. Additionally, many briefs emphasize the need for I-O researchers and practitioners to expand our networks to include legal experts, which would facilitate our ability to credibly provide science-based interventions in an evolving political and legal climate. Last, there was unanimity across briefs in the desire to be vocal advocates for and staunch protectors of vulnerable stakeholders, workers, and students. We, and the briefs, call on I-O psychologists to remain vigilant, empathetic, and informed, drawing on expertise, experience, and scientific evidence to confront misinformation, disinformation, and harm.
Table 1. Recommendations for I-O Psychologists
We also offer some additional recommendations to augment those provided by the policy briefs. First, we strongly recommend that I-O psychologists maintain strong profession-level connections through the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and other professional organizations that align with their values. As we adapt to a rapidly changing environment, it is beneficial to immerse ourselves in the experiences of our peers, providing support to others and learning about the needs of those with whom we share a strong professional link. Relatedly, we advise I-O professionals to focus on sustaining important protections, supporting adaptive responses, and advocating within our own organizations, teams, and other spheres of influence. We encourage I-O psychologists to turn toward community of all scales, dedicating time, energy, care, and other resources in impactful and intentional ways. This can take many forms, including but not limited to difficult conversations with peers and leaders, information sharing, emotional or instrumental support, volunteering, political advocacy, financial donations, petitions and protests, and even conducting and reporting on academic or applied research.
To this latter point, transparency and openness are essential for driving evidence-based practice. We recommend that scientists provide methodological and analytical details, data, research reports, and accessible summaries via open-source mediums (e.g., the Open Science Framework) to facilitate timely, productive interventions within organizations. We highly encourage readers revisit the American Psychological Association’s (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and reaffirm their professional obligation thereto (see also Rauvola & Reddy, Reference Rauvola and Reddy2023; Watts et al., Reference Watts, Lefkowitz, Gonzalez and Nandi2023). The shifting policy landscape we find ourselves in calls for a reinvigorated commitment to the professional values and ethics to which we are and will continue to be bound. Last and most broadly, we recommend being kind to ourselves and others. In line with recent calls for “gentleness” within the I-O community (e.g., Cobb & Rauvola, Reference Cobb and Rauvola2024), we recommend I-O psychologists practice compassion and curiosity in the face of stress, division, and uncertainty. Even if policy contradicts, defunds, or threatens us in the months, years, and administrations to come, our work is not (un)done. Instead, we must find new ways of doing it. We cannot think of a field better suited for the challenge.
Open access
