• Federal employees can now openly discuss and invite colleagues to join their religious faith at work, per new OPM guidance.
  • The policy aligns with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Groff v. DeJoy, raising the bar for denying religious accommodations.
  • Reactions are mixed, with religious groups applauding the move while civil liberties advocates warn of potential workplace coercion.

New Workplace Religious Freedoms

The Trump administration has issued a sweeping update to federal workplace religious expression policies, explicitly permitting employees to display religious symbols, pray in groups during off-duty hours, and invite coworkers to religious events. The guidance, released July 28 by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), cites Title VII protections and the landmark Groff v. DeJoy decision, which requires employers to demonstrate "substantial increased costs" before denying accommodation requests.

"Agency employees may seek to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views," wrote OPM Director Scott Kupor in the memo, while emphasizing that such activities must not cross into harassment. The policy encourages "generous" accommodations, including flexible scheduling for observances—a shift from previous administrations' more cautious approaches.

Implementation and Reactions

Early responses reveal sharp divisions. The Family Research Council called the move "a long-overdue correction," while the American Civil Liberties Union cautioned that "the line between invitation and pressure can blur quickly in hierarchical workplaces." Federal HR departments are now scrambling to update training materials, with one anonymous agency official noting, "We'll be watching closely for any uptick in conflict-of-interest complaints."

The guidance follows President Trump's May executive order prioritizing religious liberty protections. Though primarily affecting workplace culture, analysts note potential ripple effects: "This could influence how private employers interpret Groff," said a labor attorney familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity due to ongoing client work.

Correction: An earlier version misstated the year of the Groff v. DeJoy ruling; it was 2023, not 2022.