Trump’s Desire to Dismantle Diversity

On January 21, 2025, a day after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “January 21 DEI Order”). DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is a practice used in organizations often embodied through policies that create a supportive environment, particularly for underrepresented or discriminated people. It focuses on including people from different backgrounds (diversity), ensuring equal access to opportunity by addressing barriers (equity), and ensuring individuals feel valued and encouraged to participate (inclusion). Trump views DEI less as an opportunity for marginalized groups and more as an unequal way to prioritize the needs of people of color—but he fails to realize the historical roots of DEI that initially made it necessary.

The term DEI stems from policies from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that aim to integrate the United States. These laws prohibited job discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and national origin in a period of inequalities. However, these laws meant to protect minorities have been twisted by people like Trump to justify the removal of DEI services, framing them as discriminatory because they uplift certain groups. His administration aims to create an environment where people are judged only by “individual initiative, excellence, and hard work,” often referred to as “meritocracy” by Trump. Yet, Trump isn’t erasing DEI in the name of merit or fighting discrimination; he is dismantling it to ignore the systematic inequalities that made DEI initiatives necessary in the first place. 

The January 21st Order initiates a wide-scale attack on DEI programs. The order outlines a Strategic Enforcement Plan, which includes identifying key sectors with DEI concerns, investigating institutions with significant DEI programming, and developing specific measures to deter DEI programs that allegedly violate federal anti-discrimination laws. Among the most alarming aspects is the revocation of Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to take affirmative action in hiring based on race, sex, and other protected categories. For decades, this helped ensure that workplaces became more diverse and inclusive. While (as of February 26th, 2025) a federal judge struck down parts of this order, Trump’s administration will likely continue to push this anti-DEI agenda; even if the impacts of this push aren’t immediate, they will gradually show themselves in institutions embedded in daily American life.

Beyond the workplace, the effects of this order extend deeply into education. The Attorney General and Secretary of Education have been tasked with issuing guidance (official recommendations or instructions) to educational institutions on how to comply with the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision, which struck down race-based affirmative action in 2023. While this ruling has already weakened DEI efforts, Trump’s executive order has exacerbated the situation by threatening federal funding for schools that do not comply with its new anti-DEI framework. 

On February 14, Craig Trainor, the U.S. Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary, sent a letter to educational institutions that explained that schools and universities must eliminate diversity initiatives or risk losing essential federal grants, reinforcing the January 21 DEI order. Institutions that previously relied on DEI frameworks for scholarships, hiring, or curriculum development will need to restructure their policies to align with these new restrictions. Many educational institutions could scale back or restructure DEI offices that are meant to uplift students who need that support— not everyone is born with the same opportunity, namely because of societal systems like racism and poverty. Crucial opportunities — access to resources they wouldn’t have, like scholarships —  given by DEI programs are the chance they need to succeed.  If funding is cut, then these opportunities will be cut. The impacts of this can already be seen. Meredith Dank, a professor at NYU, had grants terminated following an email from the State Department stating that all foreign aid was being paused for 90 days while the agency investigated if programs aligned with “national priorities and agenda.” The grant that was specifically cut was for a program that supported LGBTQ+ individuals in Thailand who were at risk or had been sex trafficked. Why is supporting sex-trafficked individuals not considered part of the “national agenda”? If this insidious dismissal pattern continues, then what will happen to organizations like Heights and those who depend on it?  

Rolling back DEI initiatives disregards these marginalized groups completely. It’s important to note that DEI doesn’t specifically address race. It encompasses women, the disabled, and different religions. Yet, it’s specified in the executive order that affirmative action for veterans and individuals with disabilities will remain intact—if we apply the same narrative here of DEI being discriminatory, then why are these specific groups being exempt? 

Yes, there are issues with DEI. In some ways, its mission of inclusivity and diversity can backfire — some companies don’t expand on their workplace training, and instead use their training as a performative way to promote DEI. However, erasing DEI will deprive millions of institutions, whether they be educational or professional workplaces. Erasing these programs that many students depend on inadvertently erases their pathways to success which they wouldn’t have access to otherwise. Trainor’s letter or the Trump administration’s approach to DEI doesn’t address any of these problems of what will happen to these students. It doesn’t adequately address the debate. Instead, it deprives minority groups and institutions that create opportunities for those who need them thanks to DEI frameworks.