This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Background

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a buzzword often used in political spaces, and its implementations, or lack thereof, have repercussions on many groups. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts are organizational policies and initiatives that aim to equitably distribute opportunities and to create accepting workplaces for marginalized populations. These policies create hiring and recruitment guidelines to hire, retain, and promote individuals from those backgrounds. Supporters of these policies argue they are necessary in driving meaningful social progress, while critics argue they subordinate the role of merit in awarding opportunities.

A Recent History of Executive Orders on Federal DEI

In 2021, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13985. It was intended to provide reparations to marginalized communities in an effort to advance social and economic equity. It functioned by directing agencies to establish equity action plans and create DEI departments in federal offices. The order also created diversity-focused hiring initiatives and required the progress of DEI programs to be tracked.

In 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14151 to roll back Biden-era DEI programs. The order characterized Biden’s DEI initiatives as unlawful and discriminatory, and claimed the programs had been embedded across virtually all federal government operations. E.O. 14151 also revoked E.O. 11246, which was signed in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson to protect federal contractors from discrimination.

The Trump administration used this order to inform the Office of Personnel Management’s hiring plan, stating that “the hiring freeze” related to reducing the federal workforce “required that agencies only hire for mission-critical roles.” Social service departments and DEI-related offices were disproportionately impacted during broader, agency-wide layoffs.

Arguments Against DEI Rollbacks in the Federal Workforce

Critics of federal DEI rollbacks contend that dissolving DEI initiatives is an economic attack on Black American communities. Opponents draw attention to data from the Economic Policy Institute, which showcases the change in employment rates of Black women between 2024 and 2025; the net decrease in employed Black women was driven primarily by the loss of public-sector jobs, especially within the federal government. This trend is also noticed in metro areas in the U.S., coinciding with the Trump administration’s attacks on DEI through federal hiring. The Economic Policy Institute also found that 10 different metro areas making up 38.6 percent of the black labor force have experienced increased job losses, as well as a decrease in median household income.

Opponents of DEI rollbacks also point out that these initiatives are detrimental to veterans. E.O. 14151 directed government agencies to eliminate all DEI positions, including those in the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). As a result, all staff with DEI-related positions at the VA were placed on administrative leave within 60 days of the order’s signing.

Opponents argue the order could result in decreased safeguards and workplace protections for disabled workers in the United States. Biden’s order embedded DEI performance requirements and disability inclusion mandates into federal hiring; these initiatives also ended within 60 days of Trump’s order being signed.

Arguments for DEI Rollbacks in the Federal Workforce

Proponents of rollbacks express concerns that DEI initiatives can cause preferential treatment towards minorities at the expense of non-minority candidates. The Heritage Foundation’s analysis on DEI in the federal workforce, specifically within the Department of State, found that the agency’s approach prioritized the sex of employees over performance indicators. The report concludes that the department should depoliticize hiring and promotion processes and return to merit-based principles.

The CATO institute, another supporter of DEI rollbacks, analyzed fiscal waste around DEI and equitable hiring initiatives. The Institute claims that these policies create administrative bloating; they argue the more discrimination is perceived, the more DEI-related positions must be filled and DEI training must be held. They argue that maintaining DEI programs in the federal government allows resources to be allocated to non-critical services. Between 2021 and 2025, approximately $1 billion was spent on DEI initiatives, all of which could be spent on more critical projects, according to supporters of rollbacks.

Future Outlook

Agencies continue to lose diversity offices and funding meant to provide supporting infrastructure for equity and inclusion. The legality of President Trump’s order still remains uncertain, with groups challenging these policy changes and looking to restore DEI policies. Despite downsizing, the federal government remains still the largest employer in the United States; its hiring procedures set the standard for the private sector. Federal DEI rollbacks have resulted in private corporations canceling previously announced initiatives, which showcases the federal government’s role in broader debates regarding labor.

Understanding The Dissolution of Federal DEI Offices and Initiatives: Debate and Implications was first published by ACE and is republished with permission.

Simon Ghebretensae and James Hollander are fellows with ACE.