An overwhelming amount of things have been set in motion upon President Donald Trump’s first two weeks in office. So much so that it has been a struggle to keep up with the sheer amount of new developments recently. However, there is one central theme that explains the motives and recent decisions of the current administration. That being a desire to dismantle and eradicate the amorphous concept of D.E.I.

If you have not been paying attention to the news this past week, President Donald Trump has been issuing a barrage of executive orders, mandates and policies which all deal with attacking the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.). This is a systematic operation which is currently being fought throughout all levels of our country; whether it be within the federal government, the private sector, or within public discourse.

Based on the messaging of the Trump administration these past couple of years, it should be of no surprise that the president would go to great lengths to challenge D.E.I. via executive action. This is especially true considering how much time, effort, and resources were allocated towards D.E.I. implementation during the Biden administration. What wasn’t expected though was president Trump’s unrestrained, and almost unhinged, assault on everything remotely associated with D.E.I. during his first couple of weeks in office.

A myriad of decisions have been made by the current administration so far to dismantle D.E.I.. Examples include revoking decades old executive orders which built the foundation of basic civil rights within the United States; Some of which have been in place for over 60 years during the civil rights era. Or the self-imposed mass hysteria that is currently being propagated throughout the government in regards to dismantling everything and anything D.E.I. related. And unfortunately, we’re somehow at the point where the cause of tragic plane crashes are now being blamed on unqualified and inept D.E.I. hires…

A lot is going on right now, so we’ll be further exploring all of the information surrounding these recent decisions within this article. We’ll also be taking a step back and looking at past federal D.E.I. implementation, and revocation, to gain required historical context of this topic.

Understanding DEI Discourse
Understanding Executive Orders
DEI Initiatives From the Civil Rights Era Onward
Recent Trump Executive Orders and Memorandums
A Peak Into the Future

Understanding DEI Discourse

Before delving deeper into the president’s recently issued executive actions, we’ll first need to establish a baseline understanding of the topics that we’ll be discussing throughout this article. These topics are very polarizing and complex. As a result, our shared understanding of these subjects tend to evaporate due to epistemological isolation and propaganda. We’re currently in an environment where one person’s understanding of something like D.E.I. would be radically different from another person’s understanding of it who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum. To avoid confusion on what’s being discussed here, we’ll be breaking down some of these essential concepts now.

Diversity Equity & Inclusion (D.E.I.)

D.E.I. is an acronym which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has gone by several different names since its inception, but the underlying idea has stayed the same since.

Diversity: Refers to the conscious push to have different types of people represented within a system. This would include people of different races, sexual orientations, ages, sexes, genders, backgrounds, cultures, and opinions. This is seen as a benefit due to the implicit advantages of having diverse pools of perspectives present within a system.
Equity: Refers to the concept of ‘equality of outcome’, or ‘substantive equality’. It’s a concerted effort to provide opportunity to marginalized communities that otherwise wouldn’t be represented within a system at all. This is usually caused by systemic barriers preventing certain people admittance to the system. The goal is to forcibly break down those barriers, and hopefully address and/or compensate for all past and current discrimination that has been perpetuated within the system.
Inclusion: Refers to the idea of cultivating an environment where everyone within a system feels a sense of belonging. That their voices are being heard and meaningfully factored into important decision making processes. Inclusion also addresses issues of implicit and explicit discrimination present within the system by proactively and reactively eliminate it. This generally bolsters morale for all present within the system.

The three concepts listed above are then combined together into an organizational framework. It’s used to promote and instill a culture of opportunity for all applicable individuals. This is done by institutionalizing things such as processes, training programs, and initiatives which promote all three of these concepts. Additionally, these D.E.I. frameworks usually hyper focus on those from marginalized communities as they have been the ones who have been historically underrepresented within these systems.

Criticisms & Counterarguments

There has been a large population of people who are, and have been critical of D.E.I. over the years. Some may passively dismiss these people, and their criticisms, as simple racism and misogyny, but there are those that actually feel it's ineffective for a variety of reasons. We’ll explore some of the more popular and substantive criticisms of D.E.I. below.

Reverse Discrimination:

Criticism - This is the opinion that D.E.I. is inherently discriminatory against groups who are perceived to be the majority within the system. They feel that undeserved privileges and rewards are granted to individuals from marginalized communities solely based on their race, sex, or other immutable characteristics. As a result, these privileges and rewards would have likely gone to someone from the majority group who otherwise would have deserved them. These scenarios would typically only manifest when implementing equity-based programs such as affirmative action or racial / sex-based quotas. Both of which, at a certain point, do deprive admittance from the majority into the system. Essentially, this criticism stems from one's praise for meritocracy; The idea that merit is a virtue and that admittance to systems should be exclusively based on one's skill and individual aptitude. If not this, then their preference for equality as opposed to equity.

Counterargument - A common counterargument for this would be to attack the premise being framed here which is that the goal of equity is to reward those who are under-qualified or undeserving. Those making this argument would respond back saying the actual goal is to provide opportunities to those who are, or able to become qualified for a position, but have individual or systemic roadblocks preventing them from doing so. Whether those roadblocks come in the form of physical disabilities, or not being able to afford college due to financial struggles caused by generational and systemic issues. These people believe that society should make an effort to ensure that under-represented groups of our society, who have just as much faculty to be just as, if not more, qualified for certain positions are given a fair chance to succeed as well. That its a short-sighted assumption that everyone is starting off at the same place. These people might have to concede to the point though that bad D.E.I. implementation can be discriminatory at times.

Diversity of Thought:

Criticism - This is an argument that critiques the common definition of diversity and how it’s usually implemented. Those of this opinion define diversity not just by race, sex, or gender, but also by diversity of thought, opinion and experiences. Factors which they feel are typically discouraged. A common example that is highlighted to support this point is of Apple’s first head of diversity leaving the company in 2017 due to public backlash. She left after voicing her view on diversity saying that “12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men could be diverse”. Another example commonly brought up is how right-wing and conservative opinions are typically shunned from most systems, and can sometimes lead to disciplinary actions.

Counterargument - A counterargument that comes up for this is that this is an issue solely with systems that have bad D.E.I. frameworks. A good D.E.I. policy would likely allow all types of speech and opinions, like in the case of a university, or would prohibit all discussions of controversial and polarizing subjects such as in a corporate setting.

Poor Implementation:

Criticism - This argument isn’t necessarily critiquing D.E.I. itself, but the way that it's implemented within academia and corporate America. Those of this opinion feel that these frameworks are full of fluff, either in the form of the irrelevant training programs that are forced upon those within the system, or in the form of unnecessary administrative departments that drive D.E.I. guidance. This is a problem as poor Implementation of D.E.I. can be very counterproductive.

Some within the system may feel that they are fatigued by the amount of D.E.I. training issued and not take it seriously. Others may feel that D.E.I. is siphoning money and resources away from more important areas and advocate for its dismissal. And then there are those that may adopt even more racist and misogynistic behaviors as a result. For example, derogatory terms such as ‘D.E.I. hire’ would start to crop up within these systems to describe those admitted from underrepresented communities. Another example would be people adopting the idea that D.E.I. departments are corrupt and are maliciously stealing money from the system; only to be shielded by several layers of bureaucracy.

Others of this opinion also feel that schools and corporations use D.E.I. as just another hollow marketing device. That D.E.I. is currently trendy and can be used to lure in a wider pool of people. This is supported by some corporation’s behavior on social media during the BLM protests, or immediately after Pride month ends each year. They feel that the leaders driving these D.E.I. initiatives don’t actually care about D.E.I.

Counterargument - As this isn't a direct criticism of D.E.I. most people would likely agree with some these arguments, to an extent. Most would also agree that there is a financial aspect involved when it comes to D.E.I. and the industry surrounding it. Something that would likely come up though is that overall, D.E.I. benefits everyone involved when done so correctly. Policies such as implicit bias training, zero-tolerance policies for discrimination and sexual harassment, and providing scholarships for those in financial hardship are all things that reasonable people would all agree with. Advocates would focus on the point that the pros of D.E.I. significantly out-ways the cons. Despite this, these people would also likely agree that things like racial quotas, bureaucracy, and possibly affirmative action might be problematic in certain circumstances. However, they won't attribute these specific frameworks to D.E.I. as a whole.

Psychological Effects:

Criticism - Some will argue that D.E.I. policies have real psychological effects on individuals subjected to it. When it comes to those from marginalized communities, they may feel a sense of ‘imposter syndrome’. This is an idea that one was admitted into a system not based on their skill, aptitude, knowledge, experience, or intelligence, but solely from immutable characteristics and circumstances that they cannot control. This can generate a lot of stress, and anxiety for the individual as they become hypersensitive to their work, performance, and how they are perceived by others within the system. It also can’t be easily remedied as the reason behind one’s admittance into a system is rarely disclosed to the individual. Psychological effects can also occur for those from the majority as well. Studies have been done that shows that those from high status groups express concern for being treated unfairly when D.E.I. programs are mentioned at work or during the interview process. Even to the point of measurable physiological changes occurring within them.

Counterargument - A counterargument to this is that the underlying problem here is the response from the majority regarding D.E.I.. Imposter syndrome wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a large population of people assuming the goal of D.E.I. was to admit or hire dumb, unqualified, meritless minorities just because of their quota goals. That they are just admitting anyone off of the street with a specific skin tone or sex organ. If everyone had a basic understanding of what D.E.I. is, then these psychological effects wouldn't exist. However, this is a problem that will take a long time to address. People in this camp will also bring up that bad framework design is also to blame. There are a small number of cases where schools and companies are admitting people solely based on their race or sex. However, true and rational advocates wouldn't agree with this practice either.

Understanding Executive Orders

Shifting focus away from D.E.I. for a minute, another important concept to understand are executive orders.

Executive orders are directives that influence the operational management, and enforcement of policies within the federal government. The power to issue executive orders is granted only to the sitting president by the constitution. And for the context of this article, they also have the power to revoke the executive orders issued by previous administrations as well. All executive orders are numbered consecutively by when they were initially signed. They also can be found online within the federal registry’s website.

They hold a lot of power as they can dictate how legislation is enforced by the executive branch, how the government deals with national emergencies, and how internal processes are handled within the government. They're intended to be used to address time sensitive problems and scenarios; Ones which can't be addressed immediately via legislation.

Despite how powerful these executive orders are, they are well regulated within the checks and balances defined within the constitution. For example, Congress can’t explicitly overturn an executive order, but they can pass laws that can completely invalidate them, or make it impossible for executive agencies to enforce them. Laws passed by congress will always take precedence over an executive order or memorandum. Additionally, courts and the judicial branch have the power to rule an executive order as unconstitutional and classify them as adjudicated unlawful. This means that despite an executive order being issued, they can be challenged in court; effectively pausing their implementation in specific jurisdictions.

Due to the fickle continuance of executive orders, it should be the norm that sitting presidents attempt to enact policy changes through bipartisan congressional legislation as opposed to unilateral executive action. As we’re seeing now, this style of policy change can cause a lot of unintended downstream pressure and mass confusion. However, as we already know, the problematic trend of reversing executive actions issued by previous administrations, and then instating new ones that take their place, has become a day-one tradition now for new presidents...

Now that we have a basic understanding of executive orders and D.E.I., we’ll now have to gain a holistic view of the D.E.I. initiatives which were implemented in the past couple of decades. Both of which are requirements for formulating any informed or credible opinion on the topic. We won’t be going over every single D.E.I. initiative that has ever been proposed, or implemented, but we will be going over the most notable and influential examples.

DEI Initiatives From the Civil Rights Era Onward

Despite the public’s recent hysteria surrounding D.E.I. reaching all time highs, the underlying concept is nothing new. D.E.I. in its current form is just the latest iteration of an evolving idea of anti-discrimination. Notable examples of its previous labels include civil rights, multiculturalism, equal opportunity, social justice, and wokeness. The messaging behind each of these movements may have differed slightly, but the core concept between all of them has remained the same since its inception in the 1960’s. And despite the aggressive revocation of D.E.I. initiatives under President Donald Trump, this isn’t the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president has actively targeted and curtailed federal D.E.I. implementation.

Laws & Executive Orders - 1960s

There have been many important and historical pieces of legislation passed in the 60’s. Being the decade defined by the civil rights movement, it's of no surprise that there would be executive action and legislation passed pertaining to the tenets of D.E.I. This era also built the foundation of these concepts which have been steadily and consistently amended throughout almost every presidential administration since. The most notable examples are provided below.

Executive Order 10925: (1961)
This was an executive order, signed by president John F. Kennedy, which required federal contractors to adhere to ‘affirmative action’ throughout the hiring process. This executive order would open contractors up to litigation if they are found discriminating based on race, creed, color, or background. The term ‘affirmative action’ was first used here in response to the passive enactment conducted by the previous presidential administration to combat discrimination. This new approach stressed the idea of actively combating discrimination moving forward.
Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act: (1964)
Title 7 is one of eleven titles that make up the civil rights act of 1964, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate based on race, color, sex, religion, and nation of origin. Other titles from the civil rights act targeted other aspects of discrimination throughout society such as voting, and segregation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEoC) was also created under this title. This agency enforces anti-discrimination laws within the workplace. They do so by working with employees and employers in situations where discrimination comes up. They will review complaints for validity, and will assist in resolving these disputes; either via litigation or outside of court.
Executive Order 11246: (1965)
This was an executive order, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. It prohibited race and sex-based discrimination across the federal government. It also expanded upon JFK’s ‘Executive Order 10925’ which now required affirmative action to be factored into all employment decisions within the government. This executive order does not enforce any racial or sex-based quotas. However, it does force employers to make a good-faith effort to avoid blatant discrimination during the employment process. This has been in effect from 1965 to 2025 where President Donald Trump rescinded this executive order. Several other presidents have also amended this since its inception; Either to broaden the scope of its protections, or to limit the burden this executive order placed on federal contractors.

Even though the above policies were all revolutionary, America as a whole was still very much following the status quo at this time. All of these changes were still new, so most of the guidance surrounding discrimination was not yet established. Additionally, these laws were still somewhat ambiguous at the time which made it difficult to truly enforce them. Multiple amendments would have to be made to them to re-clarify their intentions and scope. And finally, the country was still processing the true implications of the civil rights movement at the time which was still in its adolescence.

Laws & Executive Orders - 1970s

The 70’s is where we started to see real systemic change occur; especially within corporate America. Executive orders issues during this decade forced employers to take anti discriminatory processes seriously due to the financial risks of litigation. As a result, there was a noticeable increase in equal employment opportunities (EEO), and affirmative action structures (AA) being implemented in companies around the country. A notable creation from this time period was the human resources department (HR) whose initial purpose was to protect companies from being liable for discriminatory practices.

Equal Opportunity Employment Act (EOEA): (1972)
This law was passed by Congress, and signed by President Richard Nixon. The goal of this law was to amend the ‘Civil Rights Act of 1964’ by granting additional protections to workers. Now it would be illegal to discriminate during the employment process on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, and marital or familial status; the latter two not being protected classes prior. These protections now applied to workers within small businesses that had more than 15 employees, as well as labor unions. This law also provided additional rights for religious expression within the workplace, making it so that employers must provide reasonable accommodations for their worker’s religious practices.

Laws & Executive Orders - 1980s

The 80’s was a decade where the concepts of D.E.I. were majorly challenged. The primary aggressor being the president at the time, Ronald Reagan, who was very vocal about his criticisms of these concepts. He made it clear that affirmative action shouldn’t be forced on contractors via bureaucratic regulation, but as a conscious choice for potential economy gains. He also believed in the concept of ‘reverse discrimination’ which is the idea that D.E.I. initiatives are inherently discriminatory for the majority; primarily white Americans. This idea would eventually resurface again in the late 2010’s, adopting the new name of ‘reverse racism’.

The Reagan administration also attacked these ideas via executive action. Besides the executive orders listed below, he issued mandates that reduced the use of all types of race-based and equitable policies throughout the federal government. He also cut staffing and funding to the EEoC as well as appointing federal judges who were harsh critics of the ideology. Reagan also vehemently opposed the idea of racial and sex-based employment quotas being utilized within the public and private sectors.

Since then, the ideas of limited government, American exceptionalism, and anti-D.E.I. initiatives, all of which defined Ronald Reagan's presidency, has conjured a right-wing school of thought that has been coined ‘Reagan conservatism’. It has also prominently resurfaced again during Trump's administration decades later.

Executive Order 12353: (1981)
This executive order was issued by President Ronald Reagan. His administration was staunchly opposed to the philosophy of Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘Executive Order 11246’ so this order reduced the scope of its protections via an amendment. It also shifted the responsibility and enforcement of affirmative action directives away from most federal agencies, and pushed them solely onto the EEoC. And lastly, it made the affirmative action requirements for federal contractors more lax by making them all optional as opposed to mandatory.
Executive Order 12432: (1983)
This was an executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan. The goal was for the government to assist in the creation, growth, and funding of minority owned businesses. This executive order also created the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) which is established under the Department of Commerce (DoC). The agency works with minority owned businesses to help them compete in global markets by offering things like capital and business procurement. They are also responsible for proposing policy initiatives and conducting market research to help these businesses as well. Despite being a harsh critic of affirmative action, and other equity-based initiatives, President Ronald Reagan did see the inherent benefits of diversity from an economic standpoint. He argued that leveling the playing field for minority owned businesses was good for the economy and for the country as a whole.

Despite the hostile environment president Ronald Reagan cultivated in regards to D.E.I., the concept continued to grow and thrive throughout the 80’s; especially within corporate America. During the previous decade, there was a concerted effort to implement D.E.I. programs, departments, and compliance policies to avoid litigation. This created an entire industry related to D.E.I. framework design and implementation. However, with the looming threat of a Reagan presidency on the horizon, the threat of people’s jobs being lost incentivized those within to shift gears. Regardless of this being a conscious decision or not, the messaging used during this time was that these D.E.I. initiatives not only prevented potential litigation, but it also bolstered operational efficiency, maximized the utilization of talent throughout the entire workforce, and was also deemed as an essential management tool for managerial accountability. Organizations across the country continued building upon their existing frameworks during this period; despite the president’s efforts to curtail them. And over time, the claims of bolstering operational efficiency turned out to be accurate via several studies.

Laws and Executive Orders - 1990s - 2010s

There were several D.E.I. initiatives which were passed during this time period. However, the majority of them simply amended or expanded upon the existing D.E.I. laws which were passed in previous decades. Additionally, affirmative action as a whole had taken a back seat throughout multiple administrations during this time period. Republican administrations continued to limit the broad protections granted under 11246. Meanwhile, Democrat administrations barely mentioned it. Agencies like the EEoC also had their staff and funding cut during this period by both political parties. And during the Clinton administration, there were open discussions on whether or not affirmative action was even still necessary at that point in time. However, their administration argued it was still needed and required continuous support and maintenance.

Laws and Executive Orders - Obama Administration (2009-2016)

Besides the initial wave of civil rights era legislation, the Obama administration saw some of the most important advancements in D.E.I. in recent history. Some of these initiatives definitely invoked a negative reaction to conservatives and those on the right who were concerned with deficit spending and woke ideology. However, other initiatives have also garnered bipartisan support in its implementation and results. This administration definitely emphasized the importance and need in strengthening federal D.E.I. protections, as well as broadening the scope of them to apply to more marginalized communities.

Affordable Care Act (ACA): (2010)
The ACA, also known as ObamaCare, was signed into law by president Barack Obama. It is an equity-based healthcare policy that radically transformed the U.S. healthcare system. This was done by expanding the eligibility of Medicaid for lower-to-middle class individuals. As a result, the number of those uninsured with health insurance in the U.S. was reduced by over 50% by the end of the Obama administration. The ACA also made it so that people with pre-existing conditions could no longer be discriminated against, and denied health insurance coverage, by healthcare providers.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act: (2010)
This law reversed the Clinton era policy of ‘Don’t Ask, Dont Tell’. This law allowed gay and lesiban citizens to serve in the military with the stipulation that they do not voice their sexual orientation publically. It also made it so that officers were prohibited from discriminating against other military personnel suspected of being closeted LGBT members. This policy was technically a step forward at the time as the U.S. military was openly and unequivocally anti-LGBT since WW2. The act under the Obama administration however reversed this decision, and also prohibited all sex and gender based discrimination in all branches of the military.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): (2012)
This is an executive memorandum signed by president Barack Obama. It made it so that immigrants that were brought into the country illegally, by their parents, and that also met very specific requirements, would be labeled as DACA recipients. This status temporarily shielded these children from being forcibly deported from the country for 3 years. This was not a path of citizenship. Just a grace period for those to make accommodations to follow the proper legal avenues, and to not break up families with children. This was made as a memorandum due to the DREAM act, not getting passed in Congress multiple times. This act would have provided a true path to citizenship for immigrant children born in the country (dreamers).

Laws and Executive Orders - Trump Administration (2017-2020)

President Donald Trump’s first administration was one that actively attacked the concepts of D.E.I. at the time, and attempted to redefine them. One of the major ideas that was up for contention was ‘equality of outcome’ or equity. The administration believed that this was a corrosive idea that bred discrimination and resentment for certain populations in society. That a more appropriate idea such as ‘equality of opportunity’ was preferable for instilling a fair meritocracy. Another major concept that was challenged was the idea that certain races and sexes had innate negative characteristics and/or privileges, and should feel shame for them. These ideas were consolidated into terms such as ‘wokeness’ and ‘far-left ideology’; both of which were relentlessly attacked by Trump publically. Additionally, most of President Donald Trump’s executive actions prohibited these concepts from being promoted within the federal government.

Executive Order 13950: (2020)
This executive order prohibited the promotion of race and sex based discrimination throughout the federal government. This came in the form of banning training programs and policies that pushed for demonizing majority groups based on concepts such as privilege, and generational oppression. It also prohibited programs that promoted the idea that the United States is a systemically racist or misogynist country. This order was revoked by President Joe Biden on his first day in office as it directly conflicted with his own D.E.I. initiatives.
Executive Order 13769: (2017) This executive order was unofficially called the ‘Muslim Ban’ as it imposed travel restrictions on those traveling to and from Muslim-majority countries. There were seven in total (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), and the travel ban lasted for 3 months. The goal was to prevent the flow of radical terrorists from entering the country from state sponsors of terrorism. This executive order was criticized as it was seen as discriminatory towards Muslims and those from arabic descent.
First Step Act: (2018)
This executive order’s goal was to reform the criminal justice system, and to address racial inequities that were permeated throughout it. This was done by reducing mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenders, expanding rehabilitation programs, and improving conditions in federal prisons. This could be seen as one executive action from the Trump’s administration that adheres to typical D.E.I. concepts.

Based on what we learned from previous sections, it's fair to say that this administration was an evolution of Ronald Regan’s presidency. Both administrations are characterized by an aggressive prohibition and rejection of D.E.I. principles being implemented within the federal government. They also personally focused on the harm that D.E.I. policy can inflict on the majority, and see it as another form of discrimination. This is defined within both of their policy positions and executive actions.

Laws and Executive Orders - Biden Administration (2021-2024)

The push for strengthening D.E.I. reached new heights during the Biden administration. This was somewhat expected as Biden was also a part of Barack Obama’s administration. Being his Vice President, this made him partly responsible for pushing most of the groundbreaking D.E.I. legislation through congress at that time. However, as president, Joe Biden made strengthening D.E.I across all facets of our country a core pillar of his administration's mission statement.

He did so by issuing a litany of executive orders during his presidency. We won’t be going over all of them, as there are a lot. However, the synopsis for the majority of them is that they mandated government agencies to develop strategies for implementing D.E.I. policies across the government. Another core tenet for them was to reduce discrimination for marginalized groups of people who weren’t properly specified in previous federal legislation. And lastly, most of his initial executive actions were geared toward reversing President Donald Trump’s policies related to D.E.I. as they were a direct roadblock for the below initiatives.

Executive Order 13985: (2021) - Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
Executive Order 13988: (2021) - Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation
Executive Order 14031: (2021) - Advancing Equity, Justice, and Opportunity for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders
Executive Order 14035: (2021) - Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce
Executive Order 14075: (2022) - Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals
Executive Order 14091: (2023) - Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government

In addition to the above, some notable pieces of legislation was passed during the Biden administration as well. The notable ones focusing on equity and inclusive policy changes.

American Rescue Plan: (2021)
This law was signed by president Joe Biden in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a $1.9 trillion dollar economic relief package which offered support to businesses, individuals, families, and healthcare providers. Direct support came in the form of stimulus checks that paid out $1400 per person, extended unemployment benefits, expanded child tax credit benefits, and funding to healthcare facilities, hospitals, state and local governments, small businesses, and COVID testing centers. There was also a rental assistance and eviction moratorium setup to protect low-income renters from eviction. All of the provisions listed above centered around the idea of an equitable distribution of relief. Funding was provided to those who were either disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, or were classified as low-income individuals. Support was also granted to minority-owned businesses as well as HBCUs.
Juneteenth National Independence Day Act: (2021)
This act made ‘Juneteenth’ a federal holiday which marks the day that slavery ended in the United States. It can be seen as an inclusive policy by acknowledging the history of slavery, the negative impact slavery caused for Black Americans, and a day to reflect upon racial justice in America.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard : (2023)
This wasn't a piece of legislation or executive action, but a very important supreme court case. It ruled that affirmative action programs within college admissions were unconstitutional. The plaintiff in this case was the 'Students for Fair Admissions', which is a conservative anti-affirmative action group. They made the argument that the defendant, Harvard University, engaged in discriminatory affirmative action programs that punished Asian applicants. The claim was that some Asian applicants were not admitted into the university due to Asians being an overrepresented racial group within the student body. Based on Harvard's affirmative action policies, some Asian applicants were turned down for others from underrepresented communities; most of which were less qualified. The plantiff's argument was that this was violating ‘Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’ due to race-based discrimination. This initially was struck down in lower district courts in 2013, and then in the court of appeals in 2020. It then was escalated to the Supreme Court where in 2023 it was then ruled that Harvard's actions were unconstitutional. This was at a time when the SCOTUS was composed of a republican majority.

Recent Trump Executive Orders and Memorandums

At this point, we should have a solid understanding of how the U.S. government has handled D.E.I. policy throughout recent history. Now let's shift focus back to the recent executive actions issued by the current sitting president, Donald Trump. There have been two main executive orders that were issued this past week which directly address federal D.E.I. policy.

Executive Actions

Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions/

The purpose of this executive order was to target and revoke a multitude of Biden era initiatives; a large portion of which pertains to D.E.I. As a result, 68 executive orders and 11 memorandums issued during the Biden administration were rescinded. This would include all 6 of the Biden era executive orders that were mentioned in the previous section of this article.

This order also stipulated that all governmental processes relating to D.E.I. are to be halted immediately. This would encompass things such as D.E.I. policies, programs, offices, and federal funding. It then ordered several directors within the 'Executive Office of the President of the United States' (EOP) to conduct a comprehensive review of all of these policies and plan to remove and/or replace them. Note that this office is composed of several agencies that work directly with the sitting president to enforce their executive policy. The deadline for this initiative is currently set for March 6th of 2025.

This article is only focusing specifically on D.E.I., however this executive order also rescinds most of Joe Biden’s work related to immigration, public health, and the environment. All of which would require their own dedicated deep dives to interrupt.

Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/

The purpose of this executive order is to prohibit and disincentivize the use of D.E.I policy throughout the country. The president’s motive behind this is to promote ideas of meritocracy and individual aptitude, as opposed to concepts relating to equity. This was another one of his policy positions during his first term in office.

The first of several provisions within this executive order revoked past executive actions pertaining to D.E.I. implementation; the main one being executive order 11246. As was discussed at length in previous sections of this article, this was the executive order signed by Lyndon B. Johnson back in the civil right movement which built upon the concept of affirmative action. We also know that a multitude of amendments were made to this specific executive order over the course of 60 years and multiple presidencies. However, this is the first time that this executive order has been fully revoked. President Donald Trump had even amended this executive order in his first term, so an outright rescinding of it now clearly shows signs of escalation. As a result of this executive order being revoked, federal contractors do not need to worry about affirmative action anymore when it comes to employment. Note that Congress had already passed laws in the past which granted discrimination protections to workers. As mentioned earlier in this article, laws supersede executive action. This change would only realistically impact federal workers, but its revocation is symbolic none the less.

Another notable addition to this executive order included an initiative to formulate a strategic plan to encourage the private sector to abandon their DEI frameworks. This is planned to be a coordinated effort across all federal agencies. It's still unclear as to how this will be implemented, but we can get an idea on how this will play out by looking back at the Reagan presidency. Past efforts to coerce the private sector didn’t work; especially if there would be implied financial costs, losses in efficiency, and ideological roadblocks associated with their abandonment.

Some within the tech field though are concerned of their companies potentially abandoning their D.E.I. frameworks. These concerns stem from tech leaders such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg solidly endorsing Trump’s philosophies overnight, but there have been no signs of major systemic changes being implemented this early on.

Recent Impact

So far, several federal agencies have started to comply with both of these executive orders. This week, a memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which is the intelligence wing of the Pentagon, had plans of pausing its observance of holidays such as MLK Day, Juneteenth, Black history Month, Pride, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and other holidays. After review, policies like this will likely permeate throughout the entire federal government.

Another memo was issued this week by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This agency is responsible for producing the president's budget, as well as coordinating inter-agency policy initiatives. The memo stated that a freeze on federal grants is effective immediately while the federal government continues to work on its compliance with these executive orders. The memo stated that this would not impact grants issued directly to Americans such as Medicare, SNAP benefits, and Pell grants.

Despite the above, this memo has caused major issues for a lot of Americans this week. For example, there are thousands of governmental programs that Americans directly benefit off of which are funded by intermediaries. An example of this would be the State. As a result of the freeze, the State won't be able to fund these programs anymore unless they do emergency budgetary changes. This would also impact businesses that rely on these federal grants for work; potentially leaving thousands without jobs as orders are cancelled and assembly lines are closed. In addition to all of this, the federal grant freeze would also directly impact foreign aid programs, and other argicultural subsides. People have also confirmed issues with accessing online medical payment portals, suicide prevention hotlines, and accessing any information regarding transgeneder health information on government health websites.

The backlash and confusion that was caused by the OMB memo led them to rescinding it on the 29th. However, the rescindment was just for the memo. The federal grant freeze is still in full effect due the executive order. This raises the question of why the OBM decided on rescinding the memo in the first place if it would have no real material effect.

A Peak Into the Future

It's impossible to know exactly how things will turn out in the future, but I think we can come up with an educated guess based on all that we went over in this article.

It seems to be highly likely that the DEI movement will continue to evolve past the Trump administration. Unless America is finished with electing left-wing presidents, and Trump somehow doesn't harm democracy anymore than he already has by attempting a 3rd term, DEI is here to stay. Likely after his presidency, the next president will revoke all of these executive actions on their first day.

And as we learned, this isn't the first time this has happened in recent history. This type of executive policy has already been tried under Reagan and the movement continued throughout the private sector virtually unimpeded. And unlike in the 80s, there is now multiple decades of guidance and infrastructure ingrained within academia and corporate America. There will have to be a serious shift within the overton window, and an unbelievable financial incentive for the private sector to do a 180 on DEI at this point.

And speaking of the overton window, it likely has shifted too far to the left at this point for DEI to be realistically harmed. There is however a concerning rise in facism growing within the country at the moment, so the pendulum may significantly swing in the other direction. However, I think something even more disruptive than Trump will have to occur to significantly move the collective’s mindset on concepts such as diversity and inclusion. Most of the contention currently surrounding D.E.I. only stems from the concept of equity, and niche issues regarding its scope such as support for the transgender community. As more people become more informed, these things won't be as contentious as they are now.

But again, we are only 2 weeks into the Trump presidency and this much has occurred. Literally anything can happen moving forward.

Sources

Understanding DEI Discourse

Understanding Executive Orders

DEI Initiatives From the Civil Rights Era Onward

Recent Trump Executive Orders and Memorandums

A Peak Into the Future

The Attack on Diversity Equity and Inclusion