Last week, state capitals and major cities across the nation witnessed coordinated protests against President Trump’s early actions, including on immigration and transgender rights, as part of the 50501 movement—50 protests across 50 states on one day, Feb. 5. Most of the actions happened during typical daytime working hours on a Wednesday, shedding light on what could be a growing challenge for HR under the Trump administration: employee protests.

“It’s likely to get more complicated, not less,” says Kevin Oakes, founder and CEO of i4cp. After the tumultuous last few years since Trump’s first term, however, Oakes notes, “companies have enough experience that they have a better idea of how to handle issues both externally and internally.”

A ‘tricky’ path to walk for HR

Externally, many companies are being “very thoughtful” in the political positions they’re posturing and are cognizant of cooperating with the current administration, Oakes says. That measured approach is also being taken within many organizations, whose leaders “realize they have a workforce with a myriad of views. The key to workforce harmony is fostering a culture of respectful conversation,” driven by the recognition that creating a space for differing opinions can fuel innovation and inclusivity.

When it comes to how workers express those opinions, Oakes says, few companies have stated policies on employee protests other than general guidelines regarding ethical representation of the company. “Nor do I think they necessarily should,” Oakes says.

Such a policy would need to be “very clear” on what’s allowed and what’s not, in keeping with company values—and employees may have divergent views from the organization on what issues are worthwhile to protest.

“It’s a tricky area for companies to weigh in on,” he says.

One company that does is Patagonia, which has an employee protest policy closely aligned to its mission: It encourages workers to speak out about issues impacting climate change and the environment. The company allows time away from work for such activities and will even pay the bail of employees and their spouses should they be arrested for engaging in “peaceful environmental protests.”

“They are certainly an extreme,” Oakes says, “but this fits in with what the company very specifically values.”

During the first Trump administration, large-scale protests were common, prompting some employer action. For instance, Facebook and Google were among the big-name companies that gave employees specific time off in 2017 to protest on International Workers’ Day on May 1, largely as a response to Trump’s move to restrict the issuance of H1-B visas for foreign workers.

New ‘opposition of choice’?

So-called “social justice PTO” arose again in the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd and the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Yet, after Trump returned to the Oval Office last month, the massive public protests that were common in his first term didn’t materialize until the 50501 action.

In contrast to Trump’s first term, “ ‘protest’ is not the opposition of choice this time around,” Oakes says, noting many Americans are instead focusing on direct action. This includes lawsuits challenging the administration’s moves, organized phone banking to put pressure on lawmakers or providing direct assistance to migrant families—a response to what opposition activists said worked, and didn’t work, during the previous Trump administration.

“But I also sense a greater element of fear this time around as well,” Oakes says about the downturn in widespread protests.

“This administration has proven in several ways that they value loyalty and have been clear that retribution for opponents is very real. The fear to express opposition is much more evident than during the first administration,” he says.

Yet, the uncertainty associated with a federal administration that is diverging from norms and the onslaught of negative headlines bombarding Americans could change that environment. As the second Trump administration settles in, Oakes urges employers to take a careful, mindful approach to potential employee protests—to be cognizant of the precedent their response could set.

“What might seem like the best thing to do in the moment can come back to haunt you down the road if used as justification for the new issue du jour.”

The workplace: breeding ground for political conflict

While HR may be dealing with fewer employee protests thus far, they are increasingly being tasked with policing a divisive political environment inside workplaces.

The latest Glassdoor Employee Confidence Index, released earlier this week, found a surge in economic anxiety and concerns about inflation and a possible recession, along with lagging confidence in the business outlook for their employers—all of which have a potential political bent to them. Tellingly, the sector that reported the biggest drop in employee confidence was government and public administration, which Glassdoor researchers noted could be connected to ongoing uncertainty among federal workers about changes ushered in by the Trump administration, such as the federal return-to-office mandate.

Oakes acknowledges it’s “fairly pointless” for employers to try to prevent employees from talking about how political issues are impacting them. Yet, some workforces need more education about the First Amendment—while they certainly have the right to raise issues with potential illegal activity in the workplace, they don’t have the “freedom of speech to express racist, sexist or other discriminatory views.

“I think confusion often comes from employees thinking they have the right to free speech in the workplace,” he says. “The First Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting free speech, not private employers, which means the company can set its own parameters.”