Defending Worker Safety: Responding to OSHA and MSHA’s Dangerous Rollbacks

Justice is not self-executing. It requires vigilance, solidarity, and action—especially when federal agencies tasked with protecting workers begin to dismantle not only the safeguards they were created to uphold, but also the basic enforcement infrastructure.

On July 1, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) announced a set of wide-ranging rollbacks to long-standing worker protections. Framed under the guise of “efficiency,” these changes threaten to erode decades of progress in workplace health and safety. The National Employment Law Project (NELP), alongside partners such as the AFL-CIO, immigrant worker rights advocates, worker centers, public health advocates, and others, stand in firm opposition to these harmful proposals—and we urge others to join us.

What’s at Stake?

Following Executive Order 14192 and driven by a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unencumbered by facts, the law, or a moral compass, this Administration has proposed eliminating or weakening over three dozen rules—many of which have been in place since OSHA and MSHA were founded. These rules have protected workers from serious harm and death, and their removal would disproportionately impact those in already dangerous and marginalized occupations.

1. Undermining the General Duty Clause

One of the most alarming proposals is the attempt to carve out “Inherently Risky Professional Activities” from the General Duty Clause (GDC). This clause, which Congress wrote into the OSH Act, requires employers to maintain a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious harm, even in jobs where OSHA does not have a specific regulation on how to protect workers. Under the proposal, workers in occupations such as entertainment, athletics, and other jobs with “inherently risky” activities could be left without protections—especially in areas where no specific standards exist, such as heat exposure, workplace violence, and ergonomic hazards.

This move is not only legally questionable but morally indefensible. It prioritizes entertainment over the lives and health of workers, and cynically allows employers to put workers in harm’s way under the guise of “individual liberty,” relying on the dangerous notion that if a worker chooses a hazardous job, that’s their problem. 

2. Eliminating the Construction Illumination Requirement

Another rollback targets the requirement for adequate lighting on construction sites. OSHA claims this rule is unnecessary and that employers will naturally provide sufficient lighting for an employee to perform work. But this logic ignores the reality of how construction sites actually work, where poor visibility can lead to injuries and death outside of the immediate area where work is performed. The risks to workers by eliminating this rule are greatest in those parts of the industry where workers lack the power—typically smaller, non-union jobs staffed primarily by Latine and immigrant workers.  If one of these employers cuts corners because of this rule change workers would be forced to navigate fall and tripping hazards caused by poorly lit areas just to reach basic facilities like bathrooms, their cars, first aid kits, or other parts of the construction zone. 

3. Removing Medical Evaluations for Respirator Use

OSHA is also proposing to eliminate medical evaluations for workers using the most common types of respirators, a move that would harm workers who cannot safely wear a respirator for medical reasons. This rollback overlooks the health risks to workers who remove respirators or wear them improperly in hazardous environments because a medical condition limits their ability to breathe through a respirator. This has implications for workers in work environments with uncontrolled hazardous airborne toxins, including construction, healthcare, and other settings. 

4. Ending Coordinated Enforcement for Migrant Farmworkers

The proposal to eliminate coordinated enforcement among the Employment & Training Administration (ETA), Wage and Hour Division, and OSHA for migrant farmworkers is another blow to vulnerable workers. These workers often face extreme exploitation and hazardous conditions. Removing interagency collaboration will make it harder to hold employers accountable and protect farmworkers from abuse.

5. Eliminating Hazard Warnings

For years, OSHA has required uniform color-coding to protect workers from machinery and other hazards. Emergency shut-off buttons must be red, as are cans for gasoline. Warnings for tripping hazards are marked in yellow tape. Many of these types of color-coding are industry standards that predate OSHA. The Administration wants to delete these requirements based on misguided and dangerous reasoning, such as the fact that some workers are colorblind or implying the warnings can be written on signs instead (ignoring the fact that many more workers are unable to read English). These changes will cause injuries and death and hamper first responders who need to shut off unfamiliar machinery to aid a trapped worker. 

MSHA Rollbacks

MSHA has also proposed over a dozen rollbacks, further endangering miners—already among the most at-risk workers in the country. The Agency has proposed the elimination of manufacturer-recommended inspections of the massive cable-driven tramways used in ore mines to carry tons of materials high over miners’ heads. It wants to eliminate the requirement that the large drills used in setting explosive charges be taken out of service immediately if a defect is discovered. And most dangerous, it has proposed tying MSHA’s hands when coal mines have engineering plans that don’t adequately protect miners from explosive gases, the dusts that cause Black Lung, or mine roof cave-ins. The proposals would limit MSHA’s ability to review mine plans and require companies to implement additional safeguards based on unique mining and geologic conditions.

Why This Matters

These rollbacks do not bolster “efficiency.”  They are a set of free passes that let employers off the hook and are a direct threat to worker health and safety. They reflect a troubling shift in priorities, where deregulation for deregulation’s sake takes precedence over human lives. It allows the Administration to score political points by claiming it eliminated dozens of rules that do not pose significant costs to employers but are literally lifesaving for workers.  

We must not allow these protections to be quietly dismantled. Workers deserve safe and healthy workplaces, and this Administration must be held accountable for its dangerous actions. Protecting these hard-won safeguards is essential to building a good-jobs economy—one where every worker, in every industry, can count on safety, dignity, and accountability on the job.

Take Action

The comment period for many of these proposals has already closed or is about to lapse. But it’s not too late to raise your voice. Submit your comments to OSHA using the following links by November 1 opposing: weakening the GDC, construction illumination requirement, and the respirator medical evaluation requirement.

Together, we can resist these harmful rollbacks and ensure that justice, safety, and dignity remain at the heart of our labor policies.

Doug Parker is a NELP Senior Advisor and former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.