The DEI reckoning: The rippling effects of Trump's anti-inclusion push

It was a mild June day with a gentle breeze that quickly became a wind of profound change. On that day in 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade ruling, ending a constitutional right to abortion that had stood for half a century.

That wind strengthened into a powerful gust, propelling the next administration into power. By January 20 this year, it had become a hurricane reshaping the US and reverberating globally, swiftly reversing decades of progressive activism and policy.

Donald Trump returned to office determined to undo what he labelled the “woke agenda”. Beyond personal vengeance against perceived adversaries, his administration swiftly dismantled diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal agencies and the military.

Executive orders swiftly declared that there were only two genders, banned transgender participation in women’s sports, and even renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in a bid to assert what Trump terms “traditional American values”.

“We’re getting wokeness out of our schools and out of our military, and it’s already out, and it’s out of our society. We don’t want it. Wokeness is trouble. Wokeness is bad. It’s gone,” he proudly proclaimed during an address to Congress earlier this year.

Though symbolic gestures like renaming a body of water may appear performative, critics argue that Trump’s broader assault on progressive values goes way beyond ideology. They warn that it represents the dismantling of years of activism, replaced instead by an era marked by division, uncertainty and a potential rollback of civil rights.

Top of line for Trump was taking on what his executive order proscribed as “forced illegal and immoral discrimination programmes”.

Within days, “radical and wasteful” DEI programmes were stripped out of the Federal Government, with all government contractors – even those based in Europe and beyond – forced to abide by those rules or risk losing their contracts.

Leigh Higginbotham Butler, founder and CEO of Akina Technologies, an AI platform and network for black women, told emPOWERED that the resistance to DEI was a bad business model.

“The federal government is the largest employer in the US and, therefore, its policies set the tone for businesses everywhere,” she says. “With two in three business leaders having business strategies that align with diversity and inclusion, this executive decision sends the wrong message to countless Americans who are working toward equitable opportunities.”

Unlike President Trump, who claimed DEI was impacting talent pools as he sought to restore “merit-based hiring”, Higginbotham argues that such programmes increase access to talent.

“Diversity, equity and inclusion are at the heart of what drives innovation, fuels better business outcomes and creates spaces where everyone can succeed,” she says. “Time and time again, research has shown that diverse teams simply perform better. Providing everyone access to opportunities is a responsibility that leaders need to abide by, regardless of political shifts.”

If the 47th president’s administration is impacting the entire world on DEI, then the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) acts as a microcosm for what’s going on.

Jessica Rosenworcel, the first woman to chair the agency in its 100-year history, was replaced by Brendan Carr following Trump’s appointment.

In addition to opening up spectrum and ripping up “unnecessary regulatory burdens”, top of line for Carr when he took on the role was to go after DEI.

Within hours of his nomination, he declared his intent to stop DEI initiatives at the FCC and has since launched probes into Comcast, NBCUniversal, Verizon and Disney, claiming the companies promote “invidious forms of DEI that do not comply with FCC regulations and civil rights laws”.

He has even threatened to block media mergers based on potential DEI practices, and indicated that he would not approve deals for companies that promote “invidious forms of DEI discrimination”.

“I really don’t see a path forward where the FCC could reach the conclusion that approving the transaction is going to be in the public interest,” the FCC chair told Bloomberg, referencing the likes of Verizon’s $20 billion deal for Frontier and US Cellular’s $4.4 billion wireless unit sale to T-Mobile.

Heather Wallander, the founder and CEO of JustiProof, an app that lets users document workplace discrimination, says DEI initiatives are not perfect, but that that should have led to corrections and improvements, not a complete dismantling and rejection of the initiatives.

“Unfortunately, these shifts away from DEI are not only going to make it harder for women to speak up and challenge discrimination, but many will find themselves without the safe space of an employee resource group they may have relied upon as employers are pressured to remove these groups entirely,” says Wallander.

While some of Trump’s anti-DEI efforts have been bogged down or blocked by the courts, the impact was felt across the world almost immediately.

Some of tech’s biggest names – such as Google, Meta, and Amazon – whose CEOs conveniently found themselves front and centre at Trump’s inauguration, quickly sensed which way the political winds were blowing and quietly shelved several diversity programmes.

Even BT got in on the act, scrapping diversity and inclusion targets from its managerial bonus scheme, despite CEO Allison Kirkby telling employees that it was hard to see companies and governments stepping back from their commitment to inclusion.

DaVonda St. Clair, an information security architect and founder of DLSS Consulting, says the US “sets a tone that resonates worldwide”.

“When DEI is deprioritised at the federal level, it signals permission for similar erosion globally,” she says. “As someone who lived and worked in the Middle East for over a decade, I witnessed the influence of US cultural and corporate practices abroad.

“If DEI is undermined here, it can easily trigger rollbacks in multinational companies and discourage emerging markets from investing in gender and racial equity at scale.”

Such walk-backs by big brands come just a handful of years after they scrambled to sponsor and support following the murder of George Floyd.

Melissa Franks, fractional COO and founder of On Call COO, told emPOWERED that private citizens take cues from big business “primarily because the majority of their awake time is spent at work”.

“When businesses deprioritise diversity and have less women represented, then private citizens look for their personal life: non-profit leadership, elected officials and gender roles at home to match. This makes it more difficult for women and minorities to have pay equity, achieve leadership roles or find any role at all, which will have dramatic impacts on the US culture and economy.

“When women do not have jobs [or] are not paid commensurately to men, the economy suffers. In addition, the leadership landscape will change in these businesses. Many women are the first women in an executive or C-suite role because ‘there had to be one’. When there aren't any women in leadership in business, there isn't an expectation that women will be leaders anywhere else.”

Franks warns that the cultural ripple effect caused by Trump’s return “isn't just in industry or in private homes; it is in government, international affairs and the global economy too.”

Almost immediately following President Trump’s sweeping anti-DEI executive orders, a wave of legal challenges erupted, exposing significant vulnerabilities in the administration’s approach.

Critics argued that the broad language of the orders was not only vague but potentially unconstitutional, infringing upon free-speech rights and posing serious compliance issues for federal contractors and grant recipients.

In a major setback for Trump, Judge Matthew Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois temporarily blocked key aspects of the Department of Labor’s enforcement of these executive orders.

Specifically, the judge halted the requirement that forced government contractors and grantees to certify compliance with Trump’s anti-DEI provisions or face severe penalties under the False Claims Act.

Kennelly described the provisions as “unconstitutionally vague”, adding that the uncertainty created by the rules would inevitably pressure organisations into curtailing speech related to DEI initiatives to avoid crippling financial repercussions.

Wallander of JustiProof warns of deeper systemic issues that Trump’s executive actions exacerbate: “The pay-to-discriminate model already perpetuates a system that does little to prevent discriminating employers from repeating the behaviour,” she says. “With DEI downplayed by the Trump administration, employers are further emboldened because they know employees face enormous hurdles when trying to challenge discrimination.

“Companies leverage these barriers to dodge accountability. If discrimination cases surge with these policy shifts, already overwhelmed civil rights agencies will face even greater strain, limiting how many people can effectively hold employers accountable.”

Although the administration has seen some success, such as an appeals court previously lifting a broader injunction against the executive orders in Baltimore, the ongoing legal battles underscore deep tensions and uncertainty around the administration's attempts to redefine DEI.

Judge Kennelly’s ruling, though limited to the Department of Labor, sets a significant precedent that will likely influence future challenges across other federal agencies.

As these cases proceed, the courts could very well not just determine the fate of Trump’s anti-DEI measures, but also set lasting precedents regarding free speech, government overreach and civil rights compliance across the US, and potentially beyond.

Elsewhere on the legal front, Kelsey Szamet, a partner at Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers, warns that if anti-DEI lawsuits ramp up, businesses may rethink inclusion policies to stay out of court.

The Trump administration’s aggressive rollback of DEI initiatives has understandably sent shockwaves through workplaces, educational institutions and communities worldwide. Yet despite these profound policy shifts and cultural backlash, the resilience and resolve among those committed to DEI remain undiminished.

St. Clair underscores this resilience by highlighting the fundamental role that DEI plays in protecting marginalised groups: “DEI isn't just a programmeme — it's protection,” she says.

“When policies dismantle DEI efforts, the most vulnerable groups lose more than access; they lose visibility, opportunity and, in many cases, the psychological safety to speak up in their workplaces.

“Without DEI, there’s often no formal recourse when women – especially women of colour – racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, veterans, religious minorities, older adults and LGBTQ+ people experience discrimination, erasure or retaliation.”

She says it’s not just about programmes being cut but the signal that diverse voices are optional, not essential.

“That loss of institutional support often results in silence, burnout and high attrition among the very people these initiatives were designed to uplift,” St. Clair adds.

Akina’s Higginbotham sees the current landscape as a call to action, especially for the private sector: “Now more than ever, it’s on the private sector to lead and ensure that opportunities remain accessible, particularly for underrepresented communities.

“If traditional institutions withdraw support, marginalised communities will build their own structures, as they have before. We will create our tables.”

Elika Dadsetan-Foley, CEO of Visions, a non-profit training and consulting organisation specialising in diversity and inclusion, recognises that even if the explicit language of DEI becomes politically taboo, the work will continue under different names and with unyielding determination.

“Organisations may quietly rebrand their initiatives, calling them ‘leadership development’ or ‘inclusive innovation’, but the heart remains unchanged towards human dignity and equal opportunity. Culture evolves faster than policy – and while policies might shift backward temporarily, the culture of inclusion is resilient.”

The attempts by the Trump administration to erase DEI may create temporary setbacks, but history proves that efforts to silence and marginalise invariably lead to greater resolve, innovation and community strength.

But the threat to DEI is not just immediate — it’s generational. As On Call COO Franks warns, universities that have been blacklisted or defunded under the current administration’s directives are often the very institutions nurturing the next generation of diverse leaders.

If these educational pipelines dry up, the long-term impact on the workforce could be dramatic.

“With less diverse student populations, there will be fewer diverse graduates, and therefore fewer diverse candidates to recruit. This will be gradual and, without measurement, invisible – until one day, it can no longer be ignored,” Franks says.

In other words, the rollback of DEI today could mean a workforce tomorrow that’s less innovative, less inclusive and far less representative of the society it serves.

DEI is more than a policy or an acronym; it is a lived commitment to justice and equality that exists far beyond any single administration’s ability to dismantle.

While the winds of change blow in one direction, DEI will continue to live and thrive as communities, companies and individuals reaffirm their commitment, even if the leaders of the free world have turned their backs.

Trump's anti-DEI executive orders blocked by federal judge

Tech must serve all users, says DEI leader as FCC probes Comcast

Trump revokes Biden AI rules in favour of 'free speech' development