The Labor Department quietly sent roughly $60 million to groups defined by racial or progressive missions during Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s time as secretary, while she faces an internal probe over alleged misuse of funds and workplace misconduct, raising questions about bureaucratic inertia and political oversight.

Grant records show nearly $60 million flowed to organizations with explicit racial or liberal aims during Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s tenure, according to reporting based on those records by The Washington Examiner. The list includes familiar names such as the National Urban League and community groups that tend to advocate on identity-based issues rather than pure workforce development.

Those payouts landed alongside mounting personal accusations against Chavez-DeRemer, who is under internal investigation for claims that she used public money for personal travel, steered grants for political reasons, fostered a hostile workplace, and had an improper relationship with a subordinate. She has denied the allegations and her legal team has pushed back publicly.

Staffers have grown vocal about morale inside the department, describing leadership problems in stark terms that suggest a gap between public priorities and internal practice. Reports say employees labeled her an “absentee secretary” and said they were “deeply demoralized,” a sign that supervision inside the agency may not be matching what voters expect from a Republican administration.

One striking line item: in October 2025 the National Urban League received $13,295,208 from the Department of Labor, while an electrician training program tied to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers got nearly $2 million. Those numbers show how big, long-running grant pipelines can keep moving even when a new administration claims different priorities.

Some money passed through the Senior Community Service Employment Program, a program the department paused and reviewed in 2025 amid litigation tied to funding decisions. That pause itself became the subject of lawsuits, illustrating how entrenched funding relationships trigger legal fights when an agency tries to change course.

Certain recipients wear their missions on their sleeve. Chicanos por la Causa joined the successful suit that blocked the earlier administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, and in September 2025 posted this about immigration enforcement:

“This is not immigration policy, this is racial profiling against Latinos, Asians, and other people of color that runs counter to long-held American values.”

The Diverse Elders Coalition similarly defines its work around identity categories, stating:

“Founded in 2010, the Diverse Elders Coalition (DEC) advocates for policies and programs that improve aging in our communities as racially and ethnically diverse people; American Indians and Alaska Natives; and lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT) people.”

These groups are framed as advocacy organizations organized around identity, not neutral workforce shops. That reality clashes with campaign promises to move federal grants away from identity-focused DEI programs and toward merit-based workforce outcomes favored by the administration.

A DOL source, speaking anonymously, said the grantees “were not selected by this administration,” which prompts a simple question about who runs grant-making if current leaders did not choose these recipients. The moment underlines how much power career staff and established contracts have over federal spending.

Mike Watson of the Capital Research Center put it bluntly when he described the department as an institutional bureaucracy and warned about what happens when leaders disengage. His assessment was pithy and pointed:

“When the cat’s away, the mice will play.”

“Bureaucrats who aren’t being supervised, who aren’t being closely watched, they’ll do what they want to do, they’ll do what they have been doing, they’ll do what they got into government to do, which is to make government bigger, which is to make government more intrusive, and which is to make government carry out the progressive agenda.”

Watson acknowledged that some spending, especially tied to unions and long-established programs, may be beyond the immediate reach of any one secretary. That structural reality strengthens the case for hands-on oversight rather than absent supervision.

The grant story could have stayed technical, but allegations about Chavez-DeRemer’s conduct have made it political and personal. Reports say she took staffers to a strip club and used department funds for a birthday event, and that two of her top aides are part of the inquiry.

“Over the past few weeks, we’ve learned that not only is she not doing her job, she’s embroiling the department in scandal and possible criminal activity.”

“It’s frankly embarrassing.”

Her lawyer told the New York Post that Chavez-DeRemer “firmly denies any allegations of wrongdoing” and that her “utmost priority remains to advance President Trump’s agenda by continuing her hard and successful work for the betterment of the American people.”

The department has pushed back on critics, with spokeswoman Courtney Parella saying it acted “swiftly and decisively to eliminate discriminatory DEI funding and other grants that put America Last, saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually.” The DOL also claimed roughly $400 million in savings from cutting what it described as wasteful programs, along with investments in apprenticeships and workforce development.

Those claimed savings matter, but they sit awkwardly next to the roughly $60 million that went to organizations whose missions read like DEI statements. That gap is the core of the problem conservatives point to when arguing that the permanent bureaucracy resists change.

“The executive branch functions under the authority and direction of the President, and federal agencies are expected to carry out the policies and priorities established by the administration.”

“Under the Trump administration, the expectation is clear: federal agencies should focus grant funding on programs that deliver real results for the American people, and initiatives associated with what many have described as the ‘woke’ DEI agenda do not have a place in the use of taxpayer-funded grants.”

“The President has directed agencies to move away from policies and funding structures rooted in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives advanced by the previous administration, and instead ensure that federal resources are allocated based on merit, effectiveness, and the public interest.”

That is the directive in plain terms, and if the Department of Labor’s internal records tell a different story, it is a reminder that elections change leadership but not always the machinery of government without active, persistent oversight.