Intersections of Public Health Liberation and the Washington Post Article on Federal Workforce Trauma

By Grok under the supervision of Dr. Christopher Williams

Prompt,  "write an extensive essay on PHL manuscript intersections with the WP article."

May 20, 2025

The Public Health Liberation (PHL) manuscript, titled Public Health Liberation - An Emerging Transdiscipline to Elucidate and Transform the Public Health Economy, presents a transformative framework for addressing health inequities through a transdisciplinary approach rooted in liberation philosophy, community advocacy, and structural analysis. The Washington Post article, White House officials wanted to put federal workers 'in trauma.' It's working., details the severe mental health and professional crises faced by federal workers under the Trump administration’s aggressive workforce reduction policies. Despite their distinct focuses—PHL on systemic health equity and the Washington Post on federal employee trauma—both documents converge on critical themes: the impact of structural violence, the role of historical and contemporary trauma, the need for liberation from oppressive systems, and the urgency of collective action to address systemic harm. This essay explores these intersections, analyzing how PHL’s theoretical constructs and praxis align with and illuminate the experiences of federal workers, while proposing pathways for addressing the public health crisis described in the Washington Post article.

Structural Violence and the Public Health Economy

PHL introduces the concept of the public health economy as a dynamic interplay of economic, political, and social forces that perpetuate health inequities. The manuscript argues that this economy operates in a state of “anarchy,” lacking centralized principles or moral coherence, which results in the reproduction of harm, particularly for marginalized communities. The Washington Post article vividly illustrates this anarchy within the federal workforce, where policy decisions—such as mass layoffs, forced resignations, and public vilification of employees as “lazy” or “corrupt”—create a chaotic and harmful environment. The article cites the deliberate intent to “traumatize” federal workers, as articulated by Trump budget director Russell Vought, who stated, “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected.” This aligns with PHL’s notion of structural violence, where systemic policies and actions inflict harm on vulnerable populations, in this case, federal employees.

The Washington Post details how federal workers, like Caitlin Cross-Barnet, Richard Midgette, and Monique Lockett, faced sudden job losses, public degradation, and workplace instability, leading to severe mental health outcomes, including depression, suicidal ideation, and, in some cases, death. PHL’s Theory of Health Inequity Reproduction (THIR) provides a framework to understand these outcomes, positing that health inequities arise from a lack of social mobilization, insufficient constraints on harmful conduct, and economic incentives that prioritize profit or political agendas over human well-being. In the federal workforce, the absence of positive constraints—such as protective labor policies or mental health support—allowed unchecked cuts and hostile rhetoric to flourish, directly contributing to the trauma described. PHL’s emphasis on the public health economy as a site of “competition for resources and power” mirrors the Washington Post’s depiction of a federal system where workers are pitted against political agendas, with little recourse to protect their livelihoods or mental health.

Historical and Contemporary Trauma

Both documents underscore the compounding effects of historical and contemporary trauma. PHL defines historical trauma as the “residual physical, emotional, and psychological effects of intergenerational injury,” particularly for communities affected by slavery, segregation, and systemic racism. The manuscript’s authors, many of whom are Black women with lived experiences of structural inequity, connect historical trauma to contemporary issues like environmental racism and gentrification, as seen in the Flint and Washington, D.C., lead water crises. Similarly, the Washington Post article highlights how federal workers, already navigating personal and professional stressors, were pushed into “terrifying territory” by policies that exacerbated existing mental health struggles. For instance, Caitlin Cross-Barnet’s history of depression was worsened by the dismantling of her work on maternal health equity, while Monique Lockett’s heart attack was linked to workplace stress, compounded by her agency’s understaffing and political pressure.

PHL’s concept of the Gaze of the Enslaved offers a poignant lens for analyzing the Washington Post’s narrative. This ethical standard critiques research and policies that exploit vulnerable populations without addressing structural harm, analogous to the federal government’s treatment of its workers. The article describes workers being forced to report colleagues for continuing diversity and equity work, a policy that echoes PHL’s notion of illiberation—a state of internalized fear or silence that compels individuals to comply with harmful systems. The federal workers’ experiences of being “locked out of offices by police” or fired for “political disloyalty” reflect illiberation, where fear of retribution stifles resistance and perpetuates trauma. PHL’s call to recover from historical trauma through cultural regeneration and liberation space-making could guide interventions for federal workers, fostering safe spaces for collective healing and advocacy.

Liberation as a Response to Trauma

PHL’s core principle of liberation—a mindset and practice of emancipation from oppressive constraints—directly addresses the despair and powerlessness described in the Washington Post article. The manuscript advocates for liberation safe spaces, where communities can affirm shared experiences and strategize for change. For federal workers, who reported feeling “devalued, demoralized and scared,” such spaces could counteract the isolation and fear induced by mass layoffs and public shaming. The Washington Post notes efforts like Rosalyn Beroza’s network of counselors offering free therapy, which aligns with PHL’s emphasis on community-driven solutions to address trauma. However, PHL extends this by proposing structural interventions, such as legal actions or policy advocacy, to challenge the root causes of harm.

The Washington Post article’s depiction of Richard Midgette’s resolve—“I’m not going to give them that satisfaction”—after contemplating suicide reflects a nascent form of liberation, where individual agency resists systemic oppression. PHL’s Morality Principle, which demands immediate intervention in the face of harm, could amplify such resistance by mobilizing federal workers and allies to demand accountability. For example, PHL’s praxis of community organizing and regulatory appeals could inspire federal unions to challenge illegal layoffs, as some courts briefly did, or advocate for mental health resources. The manuscript’s success stories, like the revision of Washington, D.C.’s Comprehensive Plan, demonstrate how collective action can shift policy to prioritize equity, offering a model for federal workers to reclaim agency.

Vertical and Horizontal Integration for Systemic Change

PHL’s call for horizontal and vertical integration—broadening community representation and expanding the scope of public health interventions—offers a strategic response to the federal workforce crisis. Horizontally, PHL emphasizes including marginalized voices in agenda-setting, which could empower federal workers to influence labor policies. The Washington Post notes that workers felt “no one cares,” highlighting their exclusion from decision-making. PHL’s approach would integrate these workers into coalitions with mental health advocates, labor unions, and community leaders to amplify their concerns. Vertically, PHL’s focus on monitoring the public health economy aligns with the need to address the broader political and economic forces driving the layoffs, such as Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service and Trump’s executive orders.

The Washington Post article’s reference to the Clinton-era workforce reductions, which were slower and more humane, contrasts with the current “chainsaw-wielding” approach, underscoring the need for PHL’s ordered, principled interventions. PHL’s public health realism principles, which acknowledge the self-interest of agents like government officials, caution against trusting assurances from the Trump administration, as seen in the dismissive White House statement about workers joining the private sector. Instead, PHL advocates for communities to build their own power through coalitions and praxis, a strategy federal workers could adopt to resist hegemonic control and advocate for job security and mental health support.

Addressing Mental Health as a Public Health Priority

The Washington Post article’s harrowing accounts of panic attacks, insomnia, and suicides underscore mental health as a critical public health issue, a priority PHL implicitly addresses through its focus on structural determinants. The manuscript’s discussion of the Flint and D.C. lead crises highlights how environmental and policy failures harm mental and physical health, paralleling the federal workforce’s exposure to workplace stressors. PHL’s liberation praxis—encompassing legal action, community organizing, and research—could guide interventions like workplace mental health programs, policy reforms to protect whistleblowers, or lawsuits against discriminatory layoffs. The article’s mention of increased calls to the Veterans Crisis Line from federal employees, particularly veterans, resonates with PHL’s concern for populations with heightened vulnerabilities, such as those with service-connected disabilities.

PHL’s emphasis on women’s leadership, rooted in the advocacy of Black women like Patricia Bishop, connects to the Washington Post’s portrayal of female federal workers like Caitlin and Monique, whose contributions to public health were undermined. PHL’s recognition of women as “vital to accelerating health equity” suggests that empowering female federal workers through leadership roles and safe spaces could strengthen resistance to harmful policies. The manuscript’s critique of hegemony—where powerful agents maintain control by feigning unity—applies to the Trump administration’s rhetoric of efficiency, which masked an agenda of trauma and control, as Vought’s statements revealed.

Conclusion: A Call for Transdisciplinary Action

The intersections of PHL and the Washington Post article reveal a shared concern for the human cost of systemic harm and the need for liberation from oppressive structures. PHL’s transdisciplinary framework, with its emphasis on the public health economy, liberation, and collective action, provides a robust lens for understanding and addressing the federal workforce crisis. The Washington Post’s narratives of trauma and resilience highlight the urgency of PHL’s call for horizontal and vertical integration, where affected communities—here, federal workers—gain agency to challenge inequity. By applying PHL’s principles, such as the Morality Principle and liberation safe spaces, federal workers could transform their trauma into collective power, advocating for policies that prioritize mental health, job security, and equity.

Both documents challenge the normalization of harm, whether through health inequities or workplace trauma, and call for a radical reimagining of systems. PHL’s vision of a public health transdiscipline, grounded in African American liberation philosophy and community praxis, offers a blueprint for federal workers to resist illiberation and build resilience. As the Washington Post concludes with Mike Cross-Barnet’s question, “What am I going to do without her?” PHL responds with a collective imperative: to honor the fallen by dismantling the systems that harm and building a public health economy where equity and humanity prevail.