Trump’s DEI Executive Order: Only the Beginning of Attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Mel Wilson, LCSW, MBA
Senior Policy Advisor

President Trump’s recent executive order (EO) terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is a shattering setback for communities of color, the disabled, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women. By dismantling policies designed to promote equal opportunities and create diverse workplaces that look like America, this order undermines decades of progress toward a more inclusive society. The aggressive and almost gleeful announcement by President Trump demonstrates his absence of concern about the divisive implications of his decision on a national level. It is more likely that the president’s eagerness to roll out his DEI executive order on “day one” is rooted in both the politics of pleasing his base and his own personal antagonism toward righting the wrongs of past racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

If it was the president’s intent to focus the nation’s attention on his very public unveiling of the DEI EO, he achieved that objective, especially when it comes to the civil rights and social justice communities. The reaction to the directive included in the EO from those groups was an immediate outcry of disapproval.

As a whole, the EO is a full-throttled attack on DEI as public policy. Since the 1960s, DEI programs grew out of a national multilateral understanding among civil rights, politics, and business sectors that America—being an unmistakably multicultural society—is better served by a diverse and inclusive workplace that embraces equality in pay and advancement. This EO not only perpetuates inequality but also sends a strong message about waning commitment to DEI in our nation.

As is the case of most national civil and human rights policies and legislation in the United States, the evolution of DEI programs follows a path of decades of advocacy and struggle. Because the debate on the importance of inclusion and diversity to address past discrimination was public, we are able to review the evolution of DEI through a timeline. Forbes Magazine created such a timeline—mostly from a private sector perspective—which is useful for this discussion.

Pre–Civil Rights Act Diversity and Inclusion History from a Multiculturalism Perspective

For example DEI in the governmental and nongovernmental sectors was not universally accepted. Indeed, there has been strong resistance—especially among far-right groups—since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and earlier in U.S. history).

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were many debates about racial and ethnic inclusion in a Jim Crow America. Those who advocated inclusion often did so by framing it in the context of multiculturalism.

At that time, there were intense discussions about race and culture. These debates are often intersected with broader societal reactions to racial and ethnic inclusion. For example, in the early 20th century white supremacist ideas about race—such as those in the eugenics movement—flourished and gained currency among some thought leaders. These factions fought against multiculturalism by advancing notions of genetic inferiority of nonwhite groups.

Timeline for Evolution of DEI Policy and Programs in the United States

First of all, it is important to point out that there is no formal consensus among national policymakers about how affirmative action concepts evolved into DEI programs. Notably, most DEI adherents refer to the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a springboard for the proliferation of today’s DEI programs.

However, other intervening events played a role in advancing DEI as an operational aspect of governmental and private sector personnel policies. For example, in the 1960s, following the passing of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, affirmative action policies were implemented to proactively address the historical underrepresentation of certain groups, primarily focused on race.

• 1970s: During the height of the feminist movement, affirmative inclusiveness as defined in the Civil Rights Act—led to an increased demand to prioritize gender as a key component of the law. With the help of strong feminist advocates—along with the civil rights groups— the first major DEI program (Employee Resource Group) was created by the Xerox Corporation.
• 1980s: The affirmative action movement expanded beyond racial issues and gender equality to include a broader concept of diversity—mainly DEI initiatives that began to recognize disparities impacting other identity groups, such as religious minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ communities.
• 2000s: Diversity training programs began to emerge in workplaces to educate employees about different cultures, biases, and inclusive practices.
• 2020s: During this period, a renewed emphasis on addressing social injustices emerged as organizations began to embrace a holistic approach to DEI as well as ensuring equitable access to opportunities.
• 2021: President Joe Biden issued EO 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” directing federal agencies to advance equity, and EO 14035, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” to remove barriers to equal opportunity and enhance recruitment, hiring, and retention.

Post–Civil Rights Act: Opposition to DEI (and Affirmative Action) Policies

A close reading of the Trump DEI executive order immediately reveals how closely aligned it is with Project 2025’s vision for ending DEI. What is less apparent is the degree to which Project 2025’s position on DEI is aligned with decades-old grievances about affirmative action. The DEI positions in Project 2025 and the opposition to affirmative action in the 1960s share some similarities in their underlying principles and goals.

Similar to Project 2025’s point of view, opposition to affirmative action in the 1960s was largely based on the belief that such policies constituted “reverse discrimination” against White people. Like Project 2025, critics argued that affirmative action policies unfairly disadvantaged White people—particularly White men. This opposition was often premised on the proposition that affirmative action was in conflict with the principle of meritocracy and equal treatment under the law. The Heritage Foundation—which is the organizational force behind Project 2025— discussed this intersection of affirmative action and DEI in a 2009 publication, and these ideas became a foundation for the conservative think tank to later train its sights on dismantling DEI. With the 2024 presidential and congressional election victories, affirmative action/DEI opponents won the most important prize for realizing their dream of ending DEI.

Trump Administration’s Immediate and Thorough Purge of DEI at the Federal Level

With the Project 2025 blueprint in hand, the Trump administration put together a complementary EO in its insistence on comprehensive deconstruction of DEI in federal agencies. Almost immediately, Trump’s staff put their plan into action with defined agency-by-agency steps for literally erasing DEI from institutional memory—starting with firing DEI staff. The following provides a few examples of swiftness and the depths to which the administration went to wipe out all things related to DEI:

• Executive Orders: President Trump signed separate EOs to terminate DEI programs in federal agencies. These orders cut funding for DEI initiatives and rescinded previous EOs that promoted diversity.
• Federal Workforce Changes: All federal employees working in DEI roles (the term “roles” encompasses DEI-related jobs— assignments and matters) were placed on paid leave, and agency supervisors were asked to submit plans for dismissing these employees.
• Contracting and Compliance: The administration directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI-related factors in hiring, promotions, and performance reviews. It also required federal contractors to comply with civil rights laws without engaging in DEI practices.
• U.S. Department of Education: The U.S. Department of Education dissolved its Diversity & Inclusion Council, canceled DEI training contracts, and removed DEI-related resources from its website.
• State Department’s Foreign Service Institute: The institute suspended access to thousands of pages of training materials related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA).
• The Internal Revenue Service: The IRS deleted any mention of the words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” from its procedural handbook.
• Pentagon: Celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr., Day and Black History Month ended as part of anti-DEI changes at the Pentagon.
• West Point Military Academy: All minority cadet clubs are now banned.
• Federal Agencies: All federal agencies were told to immediately take down all DEI information and DEI-related materials from their websites.

The actions listed above are only a few of the many completed and ongoing DEI purges by the Trump administration.

Pressuring Private Industry to End Their DEI Activities

In a separate action, Trump directed federal agencies to target the private sector and identify organizations with “illegal discrimination and preferences.” As part of that action, he specifically targeted federal contractors. These changes have a huge effect on the business landscape—federal contractors, including major corporations like Microsoft and IBM. With this new contracting compliance requirement, companies will now have to closely review their DEI programs to be certain they conform with the rule. Because the EO is vague, companies are interpreting the compliance requirement to mean that any DEI program that seeks diversity in areas such as awarding scholarships, hiring policies, or supplier requirements is now likely prohibited.

Big business’s reaction to the impact of this pressure on the private-sector was nearly immediate with Google announcing that it planned to retreat from its DEI initiatives—making it clear that their decision was in reaction to the DEI Executive Orders. Interestingly, in a perhaps hopeful sign, several top 50 companies, including Costco, Apple, Microsoft and JP Morgan, took public stands claiming that they were planning to continue their DEI policies. Costco’s position attracted notice because, “particularly forceful.”

The most recent iteration of the coercion on the private-sector is a report that newly confirmed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, sent a memo to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division staff that DOJ intends to target private-sector companies for “criminal investigation” for having DEIA initiatives. The Bondi memo directs the Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy to recommend to the AG “specific steps or measures to deter the use of DEI and DEIA programs or principles,” as well as “proposals for criminal investigations and up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” of these companies within the “sectors of concern.”

Some legal experts who provide DEI policy consultation to companies and institutions are saying that the Trump administration does not have the legal authority to mandate private businesses to end their DEI policies. Whether the many attacks on DEI–first from right-wing interest groups, then from the Supreme Court, and then from the president– will affect the makeup of Fortune-level boards in 2025 and beyond remains to be seen.

The Fallacies of a Merit-Based Workforce and Color-Blind Society

It is clear that authors of Project 2025 and the president’s DEI Executive Order were acutely aware of the implications of race and ethnicity when they formulated their position. The title of the White House’s fact sheet related to the EO is revealing. The key words of the fact sheet’s title are “protects civil rights,” “merit base,” and “ending illegal DEI.” The use of these terms is designed to neutralize the substance of the opposing argument the White House anticipates to hear from the civil rights and social justice communities. This is particularly true with the use of “protects civil rights” in the EO’s title. The authors of this EO knew quite well that DEI as a concept is a derivative of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By appropriating that term, they hope to create a false equivalency that DEI is as much a civil rights violation against White people as it is seen as a protection for communities of color.

Similarly, the term “merit-based” is of great concern to those who support DEI policies and programs. To those in support of DEI, “merit-based” is a racist dog-whistle for the misguided assumption that people of color—especially African Americans—holding high-level positions in business or government are unqualified and were hired only because of DEI policies. Thus the term “DEI hire,” which is used derisively by anti-DEI groups.

The “DEI hire” label was recently applied by President Trump in his comments on the tragic plane crash at Reagan National Airport. Trump claimed, without citing evidence, that DEI policies and programs mandated for air traffic controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration were partly to blame for the tragic plane and helicopter collision. Trump’s comments appear to have been a criticism of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) DEI policy of welcoming disabled persons to apply for FAA air traffic control positions.

Such demeaning prejudgments only reinforce the rationale and need for diversity in the workplace. After all, comprehensive DEI policies can go a long way in demonstrating that diversity, merit-based hiring, and competence can coexist.

High Profile Examples of Trump Purging So-Called DEI Hires from his Government

The ugly “DEI -hire” pejorative has found its way in newly appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s firing of the African American chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. General CQ Brown. Secretary Hegseth has long been on record as a virulent opponent of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the military. More concerning is that, he recently referred to General CQ Brown as a “DEI hire and criticized Brown’s involvement in what he termed “woke” initiatives. We are reminded that General Brown’s qualifications match or surpass those of past chairmen of the Joint Chief of Staff. This link to Brown’s firing and Hegseth’s antagonism to DEI was not lost on Brown’s college fraternity which wrote the following in a statement:

“The Fraternity sees his dismissal as part of a larger agenda to demonize Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI), remove highly qualified African Americans and people of color from positions of power and influence…”

It is relevant to mentioned that Hegseth did not restrict his derision of DEI-hire to General Brown. He and the Trump administration also targeted women. To that point, Hegseth fired Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti at the same time he let Brown go. Thereby, making Franchetti the second top female military officer to be fired by the Trump administration. The first female relieved of her command by Trump was Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan—he dismissed her just a day after he was sworn into office.

Color-Blind Society

Many leaders of the opposition to DEI often make the dubious claim that they believe America is a color-blind society which—if one accepts their point of view—renders the need for DEI policies and programs unjustified. For example, while declaring his intent to end DEI in his state, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed EO No. GA-55, which seeks to install “colorblind guarantees”: that all Texas agency rules, policies, employment practices, communications, curricula, use of state funds, awarding of government benefits, and any other official actions treat people equally, regardless of race.

Abbott’s color-blind society concept has been embraced by many conservatives as an alternative to DEI. They believe that color blindness is a relatively easy way for managing issues of race. Simply put, they take the position that if people do not notice race, then race will no longer matter.

As would be expected, the idea of a color-blind society has its detractors. Many argue that color blindness ignores the unique experiences and challenges faced by people of color. Furthermore, those who pretend that race does not exist also ignore (or deny) the existence and impact of systemic racism.

Racial Animus at the Core of Anti-DEI Movement

Invariably, the issue of race and ethnicity is at the center of most discussion about DEI in America. This is because DEI is inextricably linked to American’s racial and ethnic history dating back to 1868 with the passage of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act—and to the present. As discussed, there has been an unabated structured opposition to diversity, as a national policy, for decades. By and large, the leadership and the most vocal opposition comes from White conservatives— among them those connected to white nationalism.

Interestingly, there is an intersection between current strong opposition to DEI and the murder of George Floyd. The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, was a pivotal moment that sparked widespread protests and a focus on racial justice and police reform. This event led to a significant increase in support for DEI initiatives in nongovernmental and governmental sectors. Not surprisingly, the proliferation of DEI in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death triggered a resurgence of the anti-DEI movement, who mobilized a concerted effort to roll back DEI nationwide.

Broader Underlying Motives Behind the Anti-DEI Fervor

It would be a mistake if we concluded that Trump’s DEI Executive Order (as well as the DEI section of Project 2025) were advanced in isolation of the far-rights long-time effort to eliminate all laws and policies that seek to use diversity and inclusion as tools for righting past patterns of discrimination in the workplace. The following important article attributed to NBC News drives home the point that eliminating DEI is only one step toward satisfying the far-rights grievances and DEI, Affirmative Action, and the like:

(As part of President Donald Trump’s new war on diversity programs, conservatives are renewing a long-running legal battle over the meaning of the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection” that dates back to the post-Civil War era. Trump, as previewed in one executive order purporting to target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, is seeking in some instances to overturn decades-old policies aimed at protecting and empowering minority groups, both within the federal government and outside.)

The civil rights and social justice communities—which had hoped that anti-discrimination laws and policies that foster inclusion in the workplace were on their way to becoming ingrained in our culture—are now deeply concerned that Trump’s antagonistic DEI Executive Orders will have dire long-term consequences for millions of Americans.

Consequences of Ending DEI and Weakening Civil Rights Protections

If as many expect it will, the DEI executive orders are the first steps in an overall objective of eroding the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the consequence to those covered by the protections will be significant including, but not limited to the following areas.

• Erosion of Civil Rights Protections: The Equal Protection Clause ensures that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Weakening this clause would undoubtedly reverse decades of progress in civil rights protection for racial/ ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+ people, the disabled, and religious minorities.
• Increased Discrimination: Weakening the Equal Protection Clause will likely increase discriminatory practices in various sectors, including employment, education, housing, and healthcare. This would disproportionately affect marginalized Americans.
• Impact on Federal Programs and Policies: The EO already aims to eliminate DEI initiatives in federal programs. Expanding it to erode the Equal Protection Clause could further dismantle affirmative action and policies designed to address systemic racism.
• Social and Economic Disparities: Marginalized groups could face greater social and economic disparities as protection against discrimination is weakened. The results would potentially increase poverty, reduce access to quality education, and intensify health and behavioral health disparities.
• Students Will Also Be Harmed: Public schools and colleges risk losing federal funding for promoting equal opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ youth. Also, the Department of Education announced that its Office of Civil Rights will stop responding to complaints related to book bans in several public school systems. The department additionally rescinded guidance to states about possibly violating students’ rights by adopting book bans.

Black Community Mobilization

It goes without saying that the Black community was particularly shaken by the DEI Executive Order. While White women have benefited most from affirmative action and DEI programs, the Black community is far more often identified with DEI.

A nationally known Black entertainment writer Robin Givhan recently wrote:

“Not that long ago, diversity, equity and inclusion was a tool for creating a more equitable and welcoming environment in public and private institutions. DEI was meant to afford equal opportunity for the marginalized or overlooked and to make sure talent was allowed to flourish.
In Trump’s Washington, DEI is the new shorthand for the myriad slurs that have been used to label women and members of various minority groups as unqualified. For some people, calling someone a DEI hire is simply the 21st century version of labeling them an affirmative action hire, which was the 20th century version of dismissing them with the n-word, which has always been a way to say: “You don’t belong here.”

The writer of that quote reflects and repeats the anger from within the Black community about the arbitrary and callous way that the EO was announced. More importantly, the author conveyed a sentiment that the DEI Executive Order is only the tip of a proverbial iceberg—with the real target being to gut the Civil Rights Act and all other legacy civil rights legislation.

Pushback from Civil Rights Community

The Trump administration’s sweeping EOs were clearly preplanned and strategic—with an emphasis on rapid implementation—that it appears that the Civil rights community were left with limited options for quick mobilization. However, based on reports, civil rights and social justice advocates are very much engaged and have begun a counter strategy to protect DEI on a federal and private sector levels. Their plan for short- and long-term actions include the following:

• Legal Challenges: Civil rights organizations like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Urban League are preparing to challenge the EOs in court. They will argue that the DEI EOs undermine decades of progress in civil rights and violate constitutional protections such as the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Legislative Action: Though this may be a long shot, given that the Republicans control both the House and the Senate, prominent Democratic lawmakers led by the House Minority Leader are working to build a coalition in Congress to counter these actions and potentially pass legislation that protects DEI initiatives.
• Public Advocacy and Mobilization: Civil rights and social justice coalitions, such as the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights and the Coalition for Human Needs, are mobilizing public support through advocacy campaigns, public demonstrations, and related initiatives. They aim to raise awareness about the importance of DEI programs and the potential negative impacts of the executive orders.
• Engaging with the Media: The mobilization tactic of engaging with the media will likely be a tool that civil rights leaders use to shape public opinion and highlight the importance of DEI programs. Many advocacy coalitions and organizations have a great deal of expertise in media engagement.

Conclusion

President Trump’s DEI Executive Order has an official title of “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” That title leaves nothing to the imagination about how deeply the Trump and his administration loathes DEI as a concept and its objectives. Furthermore, the use of venomous terms such as “demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination”—in the preamble of the document—to describe former President Biden’s DEI program reflects a purposeful distortion of the historic nature of DEI as envisioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To that point, is the manipulative distortion of the meaning of “discrimination” by suggest ing—in the context of the DEI Executive Order—that DEI gives special preferences to people of color, women, LGBTQ+ and others in hiring processes. In the thinking of anti-DEI advocates, excluding whites from such “preferences” is tantamount to discriminating against whites. In that racial discrimination is a violation of civil rights laws, the far-right have reasoned that DEI is discriminatory.

Purporting that DEI is discriminatory against white people completely ignores the underlying reasons for the advent of DEI in the first place—which was mainly meant as a tool for addressing over 150 years of inequities in the workplace. To suggest that DEI is discriminatory is not supported by history or facts.

Many Americans view DEI as an ideal ethos in a country that has experienced a historic demographic shift in terms of race and ethnicity over the previous century. To this segment of the country, Trump’s EO is a threat to the unarguable progress made since the Civil Rights era.

Moreover, the concern that we as a country are regressing to pre-Civil Rights workplace bias is compounded by the fact that the blueprint for the EO came directly from Project 2025. This is significant because Project 2025 authors and supporters not only oppose DEI but are also antagonistic to the Civil Rights Act of 1964—even to the extent of proposing to weaken the Equal Protection section of the 14th Amendment.

At the risk of understatement, the stakes are high. Therefore, the Trump DEI Executive Order and the movement to return America to the 19th century cannot go unchallenged. To be clear, the challenge will not be easy. The Trump administration and its supporters expect a fight and are well prepared to do battle to achieve their goal of disrupting and dismantling every aspect of the federal government that does not fit their vision—including eliminating DEI policies and programs and all vestiges associated with DEI.

Fortunately, many of the legacy civil rights organizations, social justice coalitions, labor unions, members of Congress, and individual Americans have begun to mobilize to defend DEI. While the civil rights and other pro-DEI communities have their work cut out for them, we can feel assured that they—with the help of many Americans—will be formidable in their efforts to protect DEI.

We can also feel assured that NASW will to join like-minded civil and human rights coalitions and individual organizations to mobilize against those who would destroy DEI and—by inference— destroy the Civil Rights Act’s protections of equal access to employment and workplace equity.

Resources

American Association of People with Disabilities (AADP) – Explaining Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA), The Trump Administration’s Recent Actions on DEIA, and the Impact on Disabled Americans

American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) – Trump’s Executive Orders Rolling Back DEI and Accessibility Efforts, Explained | ACLU

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – Protecting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility - The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Legal Defense Fund (LDF) – LDF Condemns President Trump’s Decision to Dismiss EEOC Commissioners and Highlights Impact on Marginalized Communities

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) – NAACP President Condemns Trump Administration’s Roll Back of DEI Programs | NAACP

NAACP – NAACP lists companies that dump DEI in its tactical spending guide for Black Americans

National Association of Social Workers, Social Work Speaks – NASW Press Publications

National Law Review – DEI Legal Challenges

The Leadership Center for Attorney General Studies – Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion Matter: Why Some State Attorneys General Are Fighting To Defend These Values - Leadership Center for Attorney General Studies