Whatever your opinion on it, President Trump’s “Return to In-Person Work” order is a great example of how Donald Trump is reorganizing American society along new lines. Failing to recognize how he is doing that has some significant implications for advocates and policy makers.

First, it is important to start by affirming that federal employees with disabilities have a right to work from home as a reasonable accommodation under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. The order seems to acknowledge that fact by instructing “department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary”.

Frankly, I do not believe the President can change federal law through executive order. I also don’t think he can change the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried. Like litigation over the issue of birthright citizenship, refusing to accommodate a Disabled individual gets addressed by the courts. That’s the intent of checks and balances on power.

Following release of the Executive Order, the White House’s Office of Personnel Management sent a follow-up email to federal employees reiterating the expectation that employees return to in-person work, establishing four pillars for change, and offering federal employees a mechanism to resign with pay through September 31th.

Although many of the Trump administration’s executive orders and proposed actions are generally unpopular, according to Reuters this has more public support than opposition, although – to be fair – the difference is still within the margin of error. The level of support for this is only surpassed by widespread support for downsizing the federal government’s workforce, and frankly that’s the real intent of this policy.

Officials assert that only 6% of federal employees work full time in the office. The statistic appears to be from a report published by Senator Joni Ernst who claimed that only 6% of federal workers work in-person full time, while one-third work fully remotely. There are credible reports that the statistic is inaccurate and the link to the report (embedded in the link I’ve provided) doesn’t work, but we all know how to lie with statistics.

The number’s accuracy is less important than the reason for using it. It is dramatic. It is also a clear example of how to cut and polarize an issue, and people will respond to this issue differently based on who they are and the growing divisions in the workforce and society. Working class folks, including many front line and entry-level workers, overwhelmingly have jobs that offer modest paychecks and require an on-site presence. Instead of working from home, they commute to work every workday where they interact with customers and coworkers, operate machinery, handle our mail and look after our buildings and infrastructure. In contrast, professionals in information-based positions – with higher levels of education and income – may work from home multiple days a week, and in some cases, they can be fully remote workers. CEOs and the C-suite class – including Elon Musk – have publicly complained about employees working from home and have been at odds with their white-collar information employees over this issue.

The Trump administration’s action requiring federal workers to return to the office will be perceived very differently by these different groups.

• Working class folks will see this as addressing what they perceive as a fundamental inequity between them and higher income workers. They will see this Executive Order as leveling an unfair playing field.
• Information workers will see this as an unwarranted, vicious attack on the way of life they have established in the years since the pandemic.
• The CEO/C-suite class will hail this as a victory for common sense.

This aligns with how many Americans appear to have voted during the last election. It also illustrates how the Trump administration is effectively aligning the interests of the working class and CEOs, while flummoxing the left.

I have repeatedly heard progressive folks in policy, government, politics and my personal life complain that working class “people are voting against their own interests”. Instead of listening to people and trying to understand their perspective, they argue that working class people don’t understand what is happening. Progressive folks never even seem to consider how such statements – questioning the intelligence and decision-making ability of a group of individuals – could be perceived as elitist and offensive.

Democrats – who have seen themselves as advocates for workers and low-income people – are still puzzling about how working-class people could vote for Republicans and Donald Trump. Initially, progressive folks responded to this shift as evidence of racism in white working-class voters. But the most recent election has forced at least some Democrats to recognize that Republicans increased their share of working-class voters, including working class voters of color.

Democrats obviously did not see this coming. This summer, I was with Congressman Joe Morelle on a flight from Washington DC back to Rochester. I told him that I was hearing Disabled people and Disabled People of Color who had expressed their intent to vote for Donald Trump. Other Democrats generally responded the same way, although sometimes they became defensive and angry.

I see this same disconnect in the Disability Community. In my experience, most “grass roots” Disabled folks think like working class people – whether they work or receive public benefits. In contrast, policy people in the Disability Community tend to see this issue – and the world – like professional information workers.

Democrats and progressive organizations have tried to leverage the Disability Community’s policy class to advance their own agenda. They have made the case for how the Disability Community is impacted by various progressive issues, but generally – unlike the Summer of ADAPT in 2017 – these efforts have largely fallen flat at the grassroots level.

A good example of this is the Harris campaign’s pledge to expand Medicare to cover home care services.

In May 2024, ADAPTers met with staff for House Minority Leader Jeffries because the House Democratic caucus was not yet supporting Disability Freedom and the Latonya Reeves Freedom Act.

They told us that despite widespread support demonstrated by Democrats cosponsoring the legislation, the Democratic House caucus had not made a decision to support Disability Freedom or this legislation. They said, “the issue needs to bubble up.” ADAPTers went to the Democratic National Convention to ensure the issue “bubbled up” as suggested by the Democratic House Leader. In response, the Harris campaign announced they would be developing a proposal to expand Medicare to cover home health care. That proposal, although important from a policy perspective, fell flat on its face with our grassroots. Lacking detail and tied to a single funding stream, the Harris proposal raised questions among advocates rather than generating enthusiasm.

As disability advocates, it is important to ensure that workers with disabilities receive the accommodations they need and are entitled to under the law, but we must also recognize that our education and professional positions have provided us with a level of privilege and accommodations that aren’t available to a lot of working class folks with disabilities who work front line and entry level jobs. We have a responsibility to look beyond our own personal experience and political affiliations to understand our entire community. I am not suggesting we ignore concerns about racism and bias. In fact, I am urging us to do the opposite. Now, more than ever, we need to listen to each other and value contributions, rather than control and cancel people over policy disagreements. If we don’t – like the Democrats – we run the risk of waking up and wondering “what happened to our base?”

About the author:
At McQuaid Jesuit High School, I was taught to read the biography of a writer to understand their perspective, and I think my lived experience gives me a specific perspective on these issues. This is what drives my thinking on the issue.

I am the CEO of the Center for Disability Rights, but I see that role as affording me the opportunity to be an organizer in the Disability Community instead of power and prestige.

I was raised in the City of Rochester – on Norton Street – by working class parents. My mother was a high school graduate, and my father had a GED after being expelled from high school. Neither attended college, but they were both smart people with a strong work ethic.

One was a daughter of an immigrant and a Kennedy Democrat and the other a Republican who could trace his family back to – and even before – the early colonists in Massachusetts. My parents both voted and prided themselves on being the first two people in line at their polling place. They often already voted before I would even wake up for the day. They readily acknowledged and sometimes celebrated the fact that they cancelled out each other’s vote.

Although their parties never changed, they did. Both parents were Catholic. In the 1980s when dealing with the reality that I was gay, each demonstrated – in their own way – that dogma need not be rigid and to approach difference with acceptance which opens the door to understanding.

These hard-working struggling-to-be-middle class people taught me to work hard, listen to others, think independently, value other people, and vote.

Of course, there may be folks who don’t agree with me and will try to argue that I am being a mouthpiece for conservatives, racist, or an elitist CEO in an effort to dismiss my perspective or leverage upset to get me fired so they can take my job. That’s all been done before. Before dismissing this post in anger or upset, I urge folks to read it a second time.