Podcast: A deep dive into navigating OSHA policies and compliance
Key Highlights
- OSHA inspections and citations continue despite leadership gaps and limited rulemaking activity.
- Opinion letters provide manufacturers clarity and reduce compliance risk during inspections.
- Strong safety programs protect workers and minimize OSHA exposure under any administration.
- Manufacturers should stay compliant now to avoid greater risk under future regulatory shifts.
In this episode of Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast, Peter Vassalo, senior counsel with the Littler legal firm, explains how OSHA has maintained its core activities despite leadership challenges, emphasizing ongoing inspections, citations, and the cautious approach to rulemaking, while exploring the impact of increased use of opinion letters for compliance assistance.
Below is an excerpt from the podcast:
Adrienne Selko: Question is, let's start with an overview of how things have changed within OSHA over the past year. Do you see policy shifts in the strategies of how OSHA is operating?
Peter Vassalo: So that’s a really good introductory question. The last year has been challenging for the agency in many ways. At the beginning of the administration, they were basically spending the bulk of their time sorting through everything associated with the transition, and honestly, everything that happened with DOGE took up a significant amount of time internally.
They also lost a number of people, many of whom were senior within the agency. In fact, as of right now, I believe there are only two full time, onboarded senior executive service personnel in the national office. Everyone else is in an acting capacity. So they did not have a significant amount of leadership throughout. Once the DOGE era passed, they were in a “let’s keep the trains running” mode, and they weren’t going to start developing new initiatives until the new Assistant Secretary, David Keeling, was confirmed and onboarded—which he now is.
Here we are at the end of January 2026, and he has been on board since he was sworn in at the end of October. My understanding is he’s still getting the lay of the land, and I’m sure they’re starting to think about some of the things they’ll be doing. But in terms of policy shifts, I really haven’t seen much. I think within the department, OSHA and MSHA seem to have some sort of carve out. Nobody has really limited them in terms of what they’re doing. They’re still citing cases, still doing larger cases, inspections are happening, and they haven’t rescinded any major national emphasis programs. Site specific targeting is still in effect, warehousing is still in effect. So from that perspective, they’re operating relatively normally. The only major shift is with respect to rulemaking activity—they’re still sorting through that, and I don’t expect a lot of movement there, which is typical for a Republican administration. We can get into that more later. That’s the broad overview of what I’m seeing.
AS: One area I’ve noticed is increased use of opinion letters as part of a wider initiative. How is this being perceived from the employer perspective as well as from EHS professionals?
PV: Opinion letters have always existed, and where this is coming from is Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling. In the first Trump administration, he led the Wage and Hour Division. Opinion letters in the wage and hour context are a bigger deal—they have more of a legal background behind them.
The initiative announced is department wide and includes OSHA. It’s tied to compliance assistance—cooperative relationships with employers. It’s a way to work with employers instead of solely relying on enforcement and rulemaking.
With OSHA, they’re encouraging employers with compliance questions to write in. OSHA will answer them. It’s an excellent tool because it gives employers clarity. If there’s a compliance question that could later be an issue during an inspection, having a written answer helps avoid disputes with enforcement personnel whose interpretations may vary regionally.
There’s really no downside. It provides certainty and guidance. It’s a win for the agency and employers: OSHA helps employers get their programs where they need to be, which protects workers, and employers gain clarity about compliance obligations. I encourage clients to use this, especially if it’s something OSHA is open to working with them on.
AS: Have you seen other specific initiatives that might be major changes in this administration compared to the last?
PV: In terms of OSHA, no, not really. Except, unofficially, they may dial back rulemaking and increase cooperative programs. But nothing has been announced that I’d call a major change. Keeling’s only been in the job a few months, so there may be more later this year. But for now, it’s basically the status quo.
AS: When I’ve talked to others about OSHA in a second Trump administration, some would like OSHA to focus on different industries based on evidence based data. Since not much has changed so far, are there things you’d like to see them look into more or gather more data on?
PV: Regarding hazards, my experience is that administrations sometimes get fixated on certain issues. OSHA is not a big agency—it’s actually relatively small for the reach it has nationwide.
OSHA needs to focus resources where injury and illness rates are higher or where there are real compliance issues. It starts with basic things, like falls—that hazard never goes away and could use more focus. It’s also about bread and butter issues during inspections. If employers aren’t fixing the easy things, they definitely aren’t fixing the hard things.
With limited resources, OSHA needs to prioritize where they can have the broadest impact. Sometimes they shift from one issue du jour to another. I’m hoping this administration focuses on areas that truly need it.
AS: There’s a general opinion that the agency is trying to be more pro employer, and some think this challenges worker safety. What’s your take?
PV: I started in government with OSHA in 1998 and have worked through several administrations. It’s a common theme: Republican administrations are seen as more pro employer, Democrats more pro worker and pro union. I would agree this administration, like other Republican ones, is more willing to listen to employers and give them some benefit of the doubt. But I don’t think that necessarily makes workers less safe. If an employer is motivated to do the right thing, engaging with the agency is helpful. Education helps employers build strong safety and health systems that proactively find and fix hazards.
There were even quotes in the last administration saying, “We can’t enforce or regulate our way out of problems.” Engagement is important. Being willing to work with employers doesn’t mean you’re being anti worker. There is a reluctance to engage in rulemaking—it’s a deregulatory climate. But OSHA rulemaking or removing standards takes so long that significant change is unlikely. Enforcement hasn’t softened; from the cases I see—inspections, citations—they’re doing full investigations and issuing appropriate citations. It’s just two different approaches to safety and health.
AS: Do you see the job of safety professionals changing under this administration?
PV: For safety professionals—consultants or internal EHS staff—the responsibilities are the same. Your job is to have a robust safety program that addresses hazards and prevents injuries. OSHA compliance is part of that, but injury and death hurt people and businesses. It’s not good for business to injure or kill your employees.
OSHA standards are your North Star. Whether OSHA shows up is irrelevant—your job is to keep workers safe. If OSHA does show up, a well run program minimizes any potential citations. Good safety professionals keep doing the right thing. If you’re not doing the right thing, you’re taking the same chances under any administration.
AS: What advice are you giving clients regarding inspections or potential new rules?
PV: We counsel clients on compliance. They come to us with safety and health issues, and we advise how standards apply and offer options to comply. When giving advice, I don’t factor in the current state of the agency. The law is the law. It would be malpractice to tell clients not to comply because they “might not get inspected.”
If OSHA issued an enforcement policy saying they won’t cite a hazard under prosecutorial discretion, we’d tell clients—but we’d also say: This is still a safety hazard. Address it. Today’s reality may not be the reality in 2029. It’s better to keep doing the right thing. If you need help, get help.
AS: If clients ask you to predict the future under a different administration, what do you tell them?
PV: I tell them: Sure, maybe now there won’t be new standards, and maybe there will be more cooperative engagement. But keep complying, because if things become more aggressive later, they’ll look at what you weren’t doing now. A Democratic administration would probably hire more staff, target different hazards, and roll out an aggressive regulatory agenda. Whether all of that would come to pass is unclear. It depends on personnel, compliance officers, and management.
The best thing employers can do is stay the course, keep complying, seek counsel as needed, work with consultants, work with in house people, and keep workplaces safe. Good systems make inspections easier to manage and can lead to improvements.
About the Podcast
Great Question: A Manufacturing Podcast offers news and information for the people who make, store and move things and those who manage and maintain the facilities where that work gets done. Manufacturers from chemical producers to automakers to machine shops can listen for critical insights into the technologies, economic conditions and best practices that can influence how to best run facilities to reach operational excellence.
Listen to another episode and subscribe on your favorite podcast app
About the Author
Adrienne Selko
Adrienne Selko is senior editor at EHS Today and Material Handling & Logistics. Previously, she was in corporate communications at a medical manufacturing company as well as a large regional bank. Adrienne received a bachelor’s of business administration from the University of Michigan.