Mandisa Thomas is one of the most outspoken voices in America’s secular movement. As the founder and president of Black Nonbelievers, she has dedicated her work to challenging the stigma surrounding nonbelief and amplifying the voices of African American atheists. Born and raised in New York City, Thomas grew up in a largely secular household, though she was surrounded by family members who adhered to various faiths. Her exposure to Christianity, Black Nationalism, Islam, and a range of world mythologies fostered an early skepticism, prompting her to question religious dogma from a young age.

In 2011, she launched Black Nonbelievers as a nonprofit committed to increasing the visibility of nonbelievers, particularly within Black communities. The organization, led predominantly by women and featuring strong LGBTQ representation, now boasts multiple affiliates nationwide, providing networking opportunities and support for those who reject religious faith.

In this conversation, Thomas weighs in on the sweeping impact of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established under the Trump administration and spearheaded by Elon Musk. While billed as a cost-cutting initiative, DOGE has ushered in mass layoffs, gutted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and revoked contracts under the guise of regulatory reform. Among those affected was Thomas’s husband, Craig, a General Services Administration (GSA) officer with three decades of service who was abruptly laid off alongside many longtime employees.

Thomas argues that DOGE, along with the broader framework of Project 2025, is a calculated effort to dismantle government institutions while disproportionately harming minorities. She describes the Trump administration’s actions as “shocking and unjust,” criticizing what she sees as an administration willing to sacrifice workers’ livelihoods with little regard for legal or ethical boundaries.

Though the administration claims DOGE has saved billions, independent analyses challenge these figures, and legal battles are mounting. Some Democrats have condemned the agency’s sweeping authority, calling it an unprecedented expansion of executive power. “Before our very eyes, an unelected shadow government is conducting a hostile takeover of the federal government,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned on Monday. The agency is already subject to multiple lawsuits, including one filed by Public Citizen, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing 800,000 federal workers. Plaintiffs argue that DOGE functions as an advisory body and should therefore be subject to federal transparency rules.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Your husband has been affected by DOGE. What is his story, and how has it impacted his department and job?

Mandisa Thomas: Yes, my husband, Craig, had been a leasing contracting officer with the General Services Administration (GSA) since 1994. It has been his career for decades; he had that job before I met him, before we started our family. Unfortunately, his division and multiple other federal offices were recently affected by the restructuring under the Department of Government Efficiency.

One thing that stood out was a message he sent through a family chat, in which he said: “It is surreal. Logic makes this all seem very off. As just one employee on a team of seven, I had 33 active projects, plus all of South Atlanta—not including my active FEMA assignment. And I was the only one with an unlimited security warrant. For my entire branch of 50 people—with at least 10 active projects—to be removed in one action is mind-boggling. While the people are gone, the work is still there. It is just unbelievable.”

This demonstrates that this current administration cares nothing about the laws, procedures, and people who have to do the work to keep the government running. We saw it in Trump’s first term, when he was impeached because he violated the Impoundment Control Act. He thought he could do whatever he wanted without consequences. But that’s not how things in the federal government work, or at least how they’re supposed to work.

The Trump administration’s actions have been taken straight from Project 2025, a handbook created by conservatives (mainly the Heritage Foundation), which included dismantling the federal government and the federal workforce.

The problem is that none of this is making anything more efficient. It is causing mass instability. The immediate layoffs, firings, and the forced removal of career professionals from the federal government are not about efficiency or cutting costs. The administration had to create this structure through executive order because terminating career federal employees is difficult under normal circumstances. That’s why they bypassed Congress, which controls the budget and created a workaround to push this agenda forward.

It’s sad to see federal employees being forced out of their jobs when payroll expenses only make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget. By comparison, cutting these jobs does not save money—it’s just a ruse.

Unfortunately, many don’t understand the federal budget, how it works, or how the government operates in general. Because of this ignorance, people often vote against their own best interests.

Now, in addition to federal workforce reductions, we also see cuts to public services. Nothing about this is going to be efficient. Security, knowledge, and expertise are all required to run the government effectively, and the loss of these experienced professionals will cause everything to fall apart quickly. We are already seeing economic downturns due to tariffs, and with fewer employees available to keep the government operational, things will only get worse in the long term.

Unfortunately, so many federal employees are losing their livelihoods, and now our family is one of them.

Jacobsen: If you were to consider the perspective of an individual with children—between the ages of 5 and 15—who has a spouse and a similar job, how would that family’s financial situation be affected?

Thomas: First of all, this is a day that no federal employee should ever have to experience, especially those who have dedicated years, even decades, to public service. Being a federal employee is not a welfare service. These individuals perform critical work, and their roles involve intricate processes that ensure the government remains lawful and efficient.

One of the reasons certain aspects of the government take time—although, of course, some areas could be improved—is that everything must be above board. Every action must follow legal procedures, and there cannot be mistakes or loopholes that jeopardize the system. This upheaval is devastating for federal employees with young children and families, who depended on the stability of these jobs until retirement. What are they supposed to do now?

And then there’s the private sector. The job market is already highly competitive, and many federal employees—who often hold college degrees and specialized expertise—are now being forced into an uncertain future. You can imagine the confusion, shock, and fear these workers are experiencing because this was never supposed to happen in the public sector. The federal government operates very differently from private businesses, yet we have people with corporate mindsets coming in and dismantling it for their benefit.

Now, imagine a household where both spouses work in the federal government, and both jobs are suddenly at risk. What happens to their family? It’s maddening. Honestly, I can only describe it as surreal. This was a career job—Craig’s job is older than our children. And now, across the country, countless families are feeling the same shock, disappointment, and devastation.

Jacobsen: How do these layoffs affect federal employees differently, depending on where they are in their careers? On one side, there are recent college graduates—young professionals stepping into government service with the promise of stability and benefits, only to be blindsided. On the other, there are career public servants like your husband—seasoned professionals with decades of experience, suddenly cast aside just as they near retirement. In both cases, these workers find themselves unceremoniously dismissed, echoing the upheaval seen when Musk bought Twitter—mass layoffs delivered via abrupt emails, an indiscriminate purge of an entire workforce. What does this parallel reveal about the broader implications of these policies?

Thomas: Exactly. What’s most tragic is that this administration is not valuing career public service. We’ve seen this in the private sector, where companies went bankrupt because CEOs mismanaged retirement funds, leaving long-term employees with nothing. But this federal government is funded by taxpayer dollars and should not be happening.

For someone like my husband, they couldn’t fire him for job performance—he always had high-performance reviews. Instead, they used Reduction in Force (RIF) as the justification since they couldn’t terminate him outright. And because of his years of service, they couldn’t fire him immediately—they had to classify it as RIF, meaning severance packages are involved.

This is forced retirement—a mix of termination, layoffs, and an abrupt career end. Whether it happens to a veteran federal employee or a probationary new hire, it all feels equally bleak.

For individuals who were new to being a federal employee, this was supposed to be the start of a stable, long-term career. I can only imagine how heartbreaking and surreal this must be for them—just as it is for the veteran employees who have been dedicated to public service for decades. Regardless of experience level or years of service, every one of these workers deserved the dignity of leaving on their terms, especially since they did nothing wrong.

Federal employees are not just government workers; they are taxpayers, too. Like every other working citizen, they contribute to the system. Their jobs are not handouts but essential positions that keep the government running. Yet, here we are, watching people who never voted for this administration lose their livelihoods alongside those who did support it and are now shocked to find themselves unemployed as well.

This crisis highlights not only a lack of public knowledge about how the government operates but also the cold indifference of this administration. They are profiting from public ignorance, using it to line their pockets while duping the American people into believing this is about efficiency when it is really about dismantling federal institutions for political and financial gain.

Jacobsen: In conversations with your husband, what are federal workers saying? Has he spoken with those who still have jobs versus those recently laid off? Are their perspectives different?

Thomas: One of my husband’s longtime coworkers called him—on our youngest son’s 16th birthday yesterday. She had been planning to retire in a year, but now the government has made that decision for her. It was still completely unexpected.

Even Craig, who is a person with a disability and a chronic illness, was only going to continue working for a few more years. Now, that choice has been taken away from him and countless others.

These were supposed to be jobs people could count on, jobs where employees could retire on their terms. Instead, we have people with privatized business mindsets who have already caused harm in the private sector, bringing that disruptive thinking into the federal government. It’s causing chaos, upending lives, and having a devastating impact.

Jacobsen: From your husband’s perspective—through your conversations with him over the years—there will always be some inefficiency or waste in any organization. However, efforts to reduce or streamline the workforce typically involve oversight and a more targeted approach—like a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. Has your husband ever described how this administration’s current approach to handling the federal workforce differs from previous ones?

Thomas: From the start, he has said that much of what this administration is doing violates the U.S. Constitution. He’s worked through multiple administrations and experienced government shutdowns before—where employees were furloughed, then brought back to work with back pay. But this is unprecedented.

It’s shocking and difficult to believe because, while there has always been talk about reducing the government workforce, having 2 million+ employees does not significantly impact the federal budget. The numbers don’t justify the mass layoffs happening now.

The real issue is that Trump and his cabinet do not want people in government who understand or enforce the law. They don’t want anyone telling them what is legal or illegal. They only want loyalists who will follow orders without question, no matter how unconstitutional they may be.

So, his biggest takeaway from all of this is simple: as someone who works in leasing, contracting policy, and federal law, this is illegal – period.

Jacobsen: It may still be too early for a comprehensive analysis, and I’m not sure if any has been conducted yet—I haven’t looked. Of course, I have my own assumptions, but assumptions aren’t evidence; they’re speculation. Do we have any data on whether certain groups—young professionals, older workers, women, or minorities—are being disproportionately affected by these layoffs? Or is the impact more evenly distributed across the workforce?

Thomas: Right now, there is a disproportionate impact on minorities, especially Black employees in the federal government. While the firings are happening across the board, a large number of Black and brown employees—many of whom have spent decades in federal service—are being affected at a much higher rate.

This is particularly concerning because Black workers had to fight hard to secure these positions—especially in agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD). We just saw a four-star general fired, and the justification used was that he was a DEI hire, which is a coded attack rather than a legitimate performance-based decision.

Even though the policies don’t explicitly state it, the language and execution of these layoffs disproportionately affect people of colour and people with disabilities. It’s a rollback to when only certain groups had rights and access to stable government careers.

So, while sometimes the racist undertones are subtle, in other cases, they are blatantly obvious. This administration is making it clear who they believe should have power and who they consider expendable.

Jacobsen: How do you feel watching your husband suffer not just an economic hit but a personal loss? Far be it from me to agree with the Pope, but he was right about the dignity people find in work. What has your husband said about his sense of dignity and identity after 31 years in public service?

Thomas: I can only imagine how much this has affected his sense of dignity. Craig normally takes a significant amount of time to process change, so after 30+ years on the job, this is a serious adjustment. This is still very new—it only happened a few days ago—so he is still trying to figure out how to navigate it. I can’t fully speak for him, even though I had been cautious and concerned about this happening long before it did. Now, we are focused on regrouping and maximizing his remaining paid leave while we explore our options moving forward.

As for me, I must keep working with Black Nonbelievers and my other projects. We have always supported our household and children together, but now, we must renegotiate and redefine our future under this administration. It’s not going to be easy.

We take it one day at a time—that’s all we can do. We are simply trying to keep our heads above water because that’s exactly what it feels like. That’s about all I can say for now.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Mandisa.