DOJ Launches Hard-Hitting Probe Into Minnesota’s Race-Based Hiring Practices
In a bold move defending American meritocracy, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a sweeping investigation into Minnesota’s state hiring policies, spotlighting what many conservative watchdogs have long condemned as unlawful and discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates. The target of this federal scrutiny – the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) – recently implemented an egregious new policy requiring supervisors to justify hiring candidates who do not belong to certain underrepresented groups, including racial minorities and women. Such a policy drags government hiring deep into racial and sex-based favoritism, effectively barring qualified applicants who do not fit into politically favored boxes.
The DOJ’s probe specifically addresses the DHS’s 2025 policy mandating written “hiring justifications” whenever departments seek to hire a candidate outside of designated underrepresented groups, under threat of disciplinary action including dismissal. This policy, set to take effect on August 12, has galvanized critics who argue this is blatant reverse discrimination and against federal law banning preference or discrimination based on race or sex.
“Minnesotans deserve to have their state government employees hired based on merit, not based on illegal DEI,” stated former Attorney General Pamela Bondi, whose fierce criticism reflects the growing alarm at federal overreach disguised as equity enforcement.
The DOJ’s investigation was formally announced in correspondence sent by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to Minnesota’s Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison and Temporary Commissioner Shireen Gandhi of DHS. According to Associated Press reporting from July 10, 2025, this action is part of the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown on discriminatory DEI policies that undermine true equal opportunity.
Minnesota’s DHS defends its policy by claiming it complies with a state law dating back to 1987 requiring justification for non-affirmative action hires; however, federal officials point out that the current policy crosses the line by imposing coercive measures on supervisors who do not comply. This heightened scrutiny makes clear that the DOJ will not tolerate government attempts to replace merit-based hiring with racial or sex quotas hidden behind euphemisms like “diversity.” The consequences for violating the new policy are steep – supervisors face punishment, even termination, for failing to follow the justification rule.
Details Emerge on the Controversial ‘Hiring Justification’ Policy Targeted by DOJ
The newly unveiled policy requiring supervisors to document hiring decisions on candidates outside the so-called “underrepresented” groups is more than a simple compliance step – it is a weaponized tool of racial and sex-based preference. The DHS policy defines underrepresented employees to include women, persons with disabilities, and racial minorities including Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian, or Alaskan native individuals. Supervisors must interview at least three candidates from these protected classes if the applicant pool contains three or more such individuals before considering a non-underrepresented hire.
Any failure to provide written justification for hiring outside these groups could lead to disciplinary action-up to and including termination, a fact that signals pressure on managers to discriminate deliberately. Such heavy-handed tactics raise constitutional questions and contradict decades of federal civil rights law prohibiting racial and sex discrimination in employment decisions.
Legal experts point out that this DHS policy may be an egregious violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race or sex.
This investigation follows prior aggressive DOJ efforts under the Trump administration, which has recently taken aim at similar policies at institutions like George Mason University as part of a broader federal initiative to roll back illegal DEI mandates. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is making clear that prioritizing diversity quotas over qualifications is not only unjust but against the law.
The Minnesota DHS, caught in the crosshairs, claims the policy aims to increase diversity and meet affirmative action responsibilities. Still, the federal government signals this reasoning won’t excuse policies that impose illegal race- or sex-based discrimination. The DOJ’s letter to Minnesota officials notes that the department has reason to believe the hiring justification policy “may result in unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of race and sex” and that the department is investigating a possible “pattern or practice of discrimination” in violation of federal laws, citing the Civil Rights Act provisions.
Historical Context and the Broader Battle Against Government-Mandated Discrimination
The Minnesota case is the latest chapter in a growing cultural and legal battle against so-called “affirmative action” policies gone rogue. For decades, affirmative action began as an effort to level the playing field for historically marginalized individuals. However, many of these programs have morphed into coercive systems that punish merit and promote identity-based quotas.
Since Minnesotan state law originally required some form of affirmative action accountability in 1987, the DHS’s new escalated policy crystallizes the dangerous shift from fairness to forced discrimination. The Biden administration’s predecessor, led by President Trump (R), aggressively pushed back against this trend, cracking down on DEI schemes which federal courts increasingly declare illegal. The DOJ’s current probe reflects that continuing judicial and executive skepticism of any government hiring policies that preference certain races or sexes over others.
Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s letter underscores this zero-tolerance attitude toward race and sex discrimination disguised as diversity efforts within government agencies.
States like Minnesota, operating under misguided DEI policies, have increasingly become battlegrounds where federal enforcement must intervene to protect Americans’ constitutional rights to fair hiring without racial or gender bias. The ongoing tension also spotlights the political divide, with conservative leaders demanding a return to meritocracy, while liberal politicians like Walz (D) push for escalating identity politics in government employment.
This DOJ investigation sends a clear signal: the federal government under Trump’s Justice Department will not allow state agencies to undermine civil rights laws in the name of progressive social experiments. The stakes are enormous – if allowed to continue unchecked, such policies could institutionalize racial and sex discrimination, bulldozing merit and alienating qualified candidates.
The outcome of this probe will reverberate far beyond Minnesota’s borders, influencing how states nationwide craft their hiring policies amid federal scrutiny. The American public watching will expect an end to discriminatory hiring practices masquerading as diversity programs that pit citizen against citizen under the guise of social justice.
