In a move likely to spark intense legal and cultural debate, the Trump administration has formally stated that federal employees may now openly discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace, so long as such expressions are not harassing in nature or disruptive to workplace operations.
In a memo issued Monday, Scott Kupor, Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal government’s human resources agency, said that employees are permitted to “persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views,” even within federal offices. The memo follows the administration’s broader push to expand the role of religion in public life and government, citing constitutional and statutory protections.
“This is about safeguarding the religious freedoms protected under the First Amendment,” Kupor wrote. “Federal agencies may not discipline employees for declining to participate in religious discussions, but neither can they prevent employees from engaging in such discussions when they are respectful and non-disruptive.”
According to the memo, supervisors may also express or promote their religious views to subordinates, provided the conduct does not become coercive or hostile. While such interactions may raise concerns about power dynamics, Kupor emphasized that religious expression by managers does not violate policy unless it becomes harassing or creates a hostile work environment.
Kupor’s guidance stresses that employees may form prayer groups, display religious symbols, and even proselytize, provided these activities occur during non-working hours and do not interfere with official duties. Agencies are also expected to accommodate religious practices, including flexible work hours or remote work for daily prayers, especially after the administration recently relaxed full-time office return mandates.
The guidance draws upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, and requires employers to reasonably accommodate religious practices unless doing so imposes an undue hardship. Kupor argues that this protection extends to voluntary religious conversations, displays of religious icons, and the formation of employee-led religious groups.
The Trump administration further cited the First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion while also prohibiting the government from establishing or favoring a particular religion. However, critics warn that the new policy may test the boundaries of this constitutional balance.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces Title VII, has previously cautioned that proselytizing in the workplace can amount to unlawful harassment if it is unwelcome, pervasive, or creates a hostile work environment. However, the EEOC also notes that a consensual, even spirited, discussion of religious views does not constitute harassment if it is not unwelcome.
The OPM memo references President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order, which called on federal agencies to eliminate what he described as the “anti-Christian weaponization of government.” That directive urged cabinet secretaries to identify and repeal federal policies viewed as hostile to Christian values and religious liberty.
The order is in line with Trump’s broader political alignment with conservative Christian groups, who have been vocal about their belief that religious liberty is under threat in American public institutions.
While Kupor’s memo is not legally binding and does not carry the force of law, it does set a tone and operational framework for agency behavior under the Trump administration. Legal experts note that while the guidance reflects current interpretations of Title VII, it may face legal challenges, particularly if employees allege religious coercion, favoritism, or harassment.
Moreover, courts have often ruled that internal agency policy memos are difficult to challenge directly, as they are considered advisory and not subject to judicial review unless tied to specific employee grievances or disciplinary actions.
Still, the policy shift is likely to prompt union resistance, civil liberties lawsuits, and heightened scrutiny from advocacy groups who argue that federal workplaces must remain religiously neutral.
As the guidance takes effect, federal agencies will be navigating a delicate balance between protecting religious expression and ensuring a respectful, inclusive workplace for employees of all faiths, or none.
Written By Rodney Mbua
