Learn about the origin of the only federal holiday dedicated to honoring and recognizing America's workers.
Video: The history of Labor Day
The History of Labor Day
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Colorful figures in a circle.
Getty Images, AndreyPopov
Just the Facts: DEI
Feb 12, 2025
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, looking to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best as we can, we work to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.
However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
In the last three weeks, the news has been dominated by the Trump Administration's elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This writing presents our readers with just the facts on DEI.
QUESTION: What do the initials D, E, and I in DEI mean?
Diversity: This refers to the presence of differences within a given setting. It can include various dimensions such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, and more.
Equity: Equity is about ensuring fair treatment, opportunities, and advancement while striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. It involves leveling the playing field and addressing systemic inequities.
Inclusion: Inclusion refers to creating environments in which any individual or group can feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. It’s about ensuring that diverse individuals can fully participate in organizational and societal activities.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
QUESTION: Did DEI policies change under the Biden Administration?
TheBiden Administration made several changes to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. One of the key changes was the Executive Order 13985, issued on Biden's first day in office, which aimed to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. This order led to the creation of Equity Action Plans by federal agencies to detail how they were furthering DEI initiatives.
QUESTION: Did President Trump sign an executive order ending DEI for the Federal Government?:
President Trump signed an executive order on January 22, 2025, to terminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs within the federal government. This order aimed to eliminate what the administration described as "illegal and immoral discrimination programs" and to ensure that federal employment practices, including hiring and promotions, were based solely on merit and individual performance, without considering DEI factors.
The order also directed federal agencies to combat DEI-related discrimination in the private sector and revoked previous executive orders that mandated affirmative action and other DEI initiatives.
QUESTION: Is there any evidence that Federal DEI practices or policies lowered standards?:
There's been a lot of debate around this topic. Critics, including former President Trump, have argued that DEI practices led to lowered standards, particularly in sectors like air traffic control. They claim that DEI initiatives resulted in hiring individuals who didn't meet the necessary qualifications, potentially compromising safety and efficiency.
However, supporters of DEI policies argue that these initiatives are designed to promote fairness and equal opportunity without compromising standards. They emphasize that DEI programs aim to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their background, have a fair chance at employment and advancement.
It's a contentious issue with strong opinions on both sides.
QUESTION: Does a diverse workforce increase productivity?
Research suggests that a diverse workforce can increase productivity. Here are a few key points:
- Broader Range of Ideas: Diverse teams bring together different perspectives, experiences, and ideas, which can lead to more innovative solutions and better decision-making.
- Enhanced Problem-Solving: Teams with diverse members are often better at problem-solving because they can approach challenges from multiple angles.
- Improved Employee Engagement: When employees feel included and valued, they are more likely to be engaged and motivated, which can boost productivity.
- Better Customer Insights: A diverse workforce can better understand and cater to a diverse customer base, leading to improved customer satisfaction and loyalty.
However, it's important to note that the benefits of diversity are maximized when it is well-managed and when inclusive practices are in place to ensure that all employees feel supported and valued.
QUESTION: Which corporations have refused to eliminate DEI policies and which have rescinded DEI policies?
Several major corporations have recently taken different stances on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. Here's a brief overview:
Corporations Refusing to Eliminate DEI Policies:
- Costco: Despite pressure from conservative groups and state attorneys general, Costco's shareholders voted overwhelmingly (98%) to maintain their DEI initiatives.
- Delta Air Lines: Delta's chief legal officer emphasized the airline's commitment to DEI, stating it is critical to their business.
- Cleveland Cavaliers: The NBA team continues to support DEI, believing it uplifts their community.
- Apple: Apple remains committed to DEI, continuing to invest in diversity initiatives.
- Goldman Sachs: The financial giant stands by its DEI programs, emphasizing the benefits of diverse perspectives.
Corporations That Have Rescinded DEI Policies:
- Target: Target announced the discontinuation of its DEI initiatives, citing an evolving external landscape and increased legal threats.
- Walmart: Walmart scaled back its DEI efforts, aiming to reduce potential legal exposure and divisive public opinion.
- Meta (Facebook): Meta has eliminated certain DEI programs related to hiring, training, and supplier selection.
- McDonald's: McDonald's revised its DEI protocols, no longer setting goals for diversity in senior leadership and rebranding its diversity team.
- Amazon: Amazon halted some of its DEI diversity and inclusion plans.
QUESTION: Which state governments have DEI hiring policies?
State governments have taken varied approaches to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) hiring policies. Here's a brief overview:
States Strengthening DEI Protections:
- California: Strengthened pay transparency laws and expanded DEI reporting requirements for large corporations.
- New York: Similar to California, New York has reinforced DEI commitments and reporting requirements.
- Illinois: Introduced mandatory DEI training for public-sector employers and private corporations above a certain employee threshold.
- Washington: Also introduced mandatory DEI training for public-sector employers.
- New Jersey: Enforced supplier diversity programs, requiring state contractors to demonstrate commitments to diverse hiring and business partnerships.
- Massachusetts: Enforced supplier diversity programs similar to New Jersey.
States Restricting DEI Programs:
- Texas: Enacted laws restricting race-based hiring practices and prohibiting mandatory DEI training in public universities and government-funded institutions.
- Florida: Similar to Texas, Florida has passed legislation limiting DEI programs.
- Tennessee: Limited the use of racial and gender-based hiring preferences in corporate settings.
- Georgia: Also limited the use of racial and gender-based hiring preferences.
- Iowa: Barred companies with state contracts from implementing affirmative action requirements beyond federal mandates.
- South Carolina: Similar to Iowa, South Carolina has restricted DEI programs.
The landscape is quite diverse, with some states doubling down on DEI efforts while others are scaling them back.
SUGGESTION: Just the Facts: Trade Deficits
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
People voting at a polling booth.
Getty Images//Rawpixel
The Republican Party Can Build A Winning Coalition With Independents
Feb 12, 2025
The results of the 2024 election should put to bed any doubts as to the power of independent voters to decide key elections. Independents accounted for 34% of voters in 2024, handing President Trump the margin of victory in every swing state race and making him only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988. The question now is whether Republicans will build bridges with independent voters and cement a generational winning coalition or squander the opportunity like the Democrats did with the independent-centric Obama coalition.
Almost as many independents came out to vote this past November as Republicans, more than the 31% of voters who said they were Democrats, and just slightly below the 35% of voters who said they were Republicans. In 2020, independents cast just 26% of the ballots nationwide. The President’s share of the independent vote went up 5% compared to the 2020 election when he lost the independent vote to former President Biden by a wide margin. It’s no coincidence that many of the key demographics that President Trump made gains with this election season—Latinos, Asians and African Americans—are also seeing historic levels of independent voter registration.
Don’t think that independent voters are now solidly with Republicans. A new report from Arizona State University found that independents were twice as likely as Republicans and Democrats to split their tickets between their presidential and Senate votes, with 10% of independents doing so nationwide. Independents are independent, and it's a mistake to assume that a vote for a party candidate erases that.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Over half of America’s young voters are now independent. Gallup's tracking of independent voters has consistently found them to be a larger demographic than either major party. And if you ask independents what they want, they are pretty clear that they want to vote, including in primary elections. But too many states have made it illegal for independents to vote in primaries. Committees of patriots in many states are working to change this.
The Democratic Party made clear this past year that they are firmly opposed to letting independents vote in primaries. They actively campaigned against ballot referenda in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Nevada, and South Dakota that would have reformed the system and given independent voters the right to participate in primary elections. And 2024 was not an aberration. The Democratic Party has, for years, championed efforts to defeat primary election reform across the country.
Nowhere is this more stark than in New York. For independents like myself, the right to vote in New York more closely resembles an autocracy than any democracy. Over 3 million New Yorkers are independent, and independent New Yorkers impacted this year's elections in ways both parties are just beginning to appreciate. Yet, you wouldn’t know it because the state’s Democratic Party apparatus has systematically shut down any conversation or campaign over the last several decades that would let independent voters have an equal say in who gets elected. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary is the only election that matters in most parts of the state. It’s corrupt and it demands the President’s attention.
Will the Republican Party grab a historic opportunity to do things differently? Already, Republican state parties in Indiana and Texas have indicated their interest in closing their state’s primary elections and shutting independent voters out by introducing legislation in the current session. Republican state parties across much of the South have been toying with the prospect for several years. It’s a mistake.
President Trump and the Republican Party should do something simple but powerful: recognize that the largest group of voters in the country don’t want to join a political party. They want leadership and results. And they want to be able to vote in every election. Let them. The party that builds bridges with independent voters will rule our country for a generation.
Jeremy Gruber, JD is the SVP of Open Primaries, an election reform organization. He is the co-author ofLet All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.Keep ReadingShow less
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks with former president Donald Trump during a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa.
Getty Images, The Washington Post
Elon Musk's X Factor Won’t Fix Big Government
Feb 12, 2025
Elon Musk’s reputation as a disruptor, transforming industries like automobiles and space travel with Tesla and SpaceX, will be severely tested as he turns his attention to government reform through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE lacks official agency status and depends on volunteers, raising concerns about its credibility. Musk claims his team of young techies can slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but history casts serious doubt on private-sector fixes for big government. So far, he has largely avoided legal scrutiny with the GOP-led Congress’ help, while handing sensitive operations to his team of “experts.” What could possibly go wrong?
Musk’s plan involves embedding these techies in federal agencies to find inefficiencies. His confidence comes from past successes, such as cost-cutting at X (formerly Twitter) through drastic measures like layoffs. There’s no denying that private-sector innovation has improved government services before—cloud computing, AI-driven fraud detection, and streamlined procurement have saved billions. But running a government isn’t like running a business. It’s not just about efficiency or profit—it’s about providing essential services, enforcing laws, and balancing competing interests to ensure a measure of fairness.
Efforts to streamline government are not new. Vice President Al Gore’s "Reinventing Government" initiative in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, had similar goals but was blocked by bureaucracy and competing priorities, making little progress. Similarly, Presidents Carter and Reagan launched ambitious initiatives, but none made more than a small dent. Musk may hope that his outsider status will allow him to bypass these constraints, but without direct authority to implement changes, DOGE must rely on Congress to act. Congress, however, has its own agenda and is unlikely to prioritize Musk’s ideas.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Equally daunting, his claim to cut trillions from the budget rests on shaky ground. Meaningful federal budget cuts require addressing Social Security and Medicare, which account for nearly 77% of projected spending growth over the next decade. Millions of Americans depend on them, making significant changes highly unlikely. Even if Musk finds operational savings, they won’t touch the core drivers of government spending. This part of the budget lies outside of DOGE's purview—though it is unclear just what its purview is. It is doubtful that the Trump administration would expend scarce political capital on an effort that is almost bound to fail.
Reforming these programs requires bipartisan support and the willingness to tackle politically sensitive issues. These programs are often called the “third rail” of politics—touching them can end careers. Even if Musk were serious about addressing waste, he would have to navigate a political minefield that has stymied far more seasoned policymakers.
As for his claim to eliminate wasteful spending, Musk has embedded inexperienced tech bros in federal agencies to identify inefficiencies. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability—key pillars of democracy. While fresh perspectives can sometimes bring improvements, government is fundamentally different from a private corporation. Critics argue that DOGE's informal nature and Musk’s leadership could foster cronyism and partisanship, undermining its goal of improving efficiency. The lack of clear oversight and potential misuse of power make this initiative highly questionable.
Musk has already scaled back expectations, shifting his focus from deficit reduction to deregulation. While deregulation can boost economic growth, it often comes with trade-offs: weaker environmental protections, reduced worker rights, and diminished public safety. These consequences may not sit well with the public, especially if regulatory rollbacks disproportionately harm lower-income communities. Moreover, deregulation does not necessarily lead to a more efficient government—it just shifts costs elsewhere, whether to state governments, consumers, or the environment.
For Musk to make meaningful, bipartisan progress, DOGE should focus on targeted reforms that improve efficiency without undermining fairness. Key reforms include:
- Reducing redundant federal programs: A systematic review of overlapping or outdated programs could identify opportunities for consolidation, eliminating inefficiencies while ensuring that essential services for vulnerable populations remain intact.
- Enhancing digital governance: AI-driven automation and advanced data analytics could streamline bureaucratic processes, reduce paperwork, and enhance decision-making efficiency. However, automation also risks job losses, particularly in clerical and administrative positions, which must be addressed to avoid creating new economic burdens.
- Improving procurement practices: Government contracts often suffer from inflated costs and inefficiencies. Implementing stricter oversight, competitive bidding processes, and leveraging private-sector best practices could lead to significant savings while safeguarding fair labor practices and preventing job losses in economically vulnerable communities.
- Strengthening performance-based accountability: Introducing key performance indicators (KPIs) across federal agencies could help ensure that government departments meet efficiency and effectiveness benchmarks. However, safeguards must be in place to ensure that cost-cutting measures do not disproportionately harm marginalized or low-income communities.
- Expanding public-private partnerships: Collaborating with the private sector on infrastructure, technology, and service delivery could foster innovation and reduce government expenditures. However, these partnerships must be structured to ensure they do not create barriers to access for low-income individuals or communities that rely on public services.
- Modernizing outdated government systems: Many government agencies still rely on decades-old technology, leading to inefficiencies, security vulnerabilities, and high maintenance costs. Upgrading digital infrastructure, streamlining data management, and implementing modern cybersecurity measures would improve government services while saving taxpayer money in the long run.
These initiatives could enhance government operations while protecting vulnerable populations and are more likely to garner Democratic lawmakers’ support. However, such ideas conflict with the priorities of the Trump administration, which seems more interested in cutting services to pay for tax cuts. Furthermore, even if Musk’s ideas gained traction, his focus on efficiency alone overlooks the complex political landscape that determines what policies succeed or fail.
One can view Musk’s venture into government reform as a bold experiment in applying private-sector principles to public problems by overlooking one main problem: government isn’t a corporation, and effective governance requires more than just business acumen. Success in the public sector depends on collaboration, transparency, and a deep respect for democratic principles (Musk seems to have a problem with this). Even the most innovative thinkers need the right tools, allies, and context to succeed. Reining in big government is a complex puzzle—one that can’t be solved with bold claims alone.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.Keep ReadingShow less
The Idaho legislative session is scheduled to last through April 10.
(Eldon/Adobe Stock)
ID lawmakers seek to increase barriers for passing voter initiatives
Feb 12, 2025
Eric Tegethoff
Idaho lawmakers have introduced a slate of bills which would put up greater hurdles for passing voter-initiated ballot measures.
Legislation this session includes bills to increase the threshold for passage to 50%, allowing the governor to veto passed measures and proposes a constitutional amendment that would require signatures from six percent of voters in all 35 districts.
Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, assistant Senate minority leader, said the measures come after years of attacks from Republicans on voter initiatives.
"They constantly live in fear that the people will tire of the Legislature not listening to them and will use the initiative process to get done that which the Legislature should do," Ruchti asserted.
Ruchti noted one instance in which lawmakers did not listen to Idahoans was on Medicaid expansion. In 2018, 60% of voters approved a measure to expand the program. Lawmakers have introduced a bill this session to repeal Medicaid expansion. Sponsors of ballot measure legislation argued out-of-state money drives the initiatives.
Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, who sponsored some of the bills to increase initiative thresholds, said allowing the governor to veto measures would be similar to bills passed in the Legislature. He also contended it is "good protection for a misinformed electorate if they don't get the information like we get to have."
Ruchti countered lawmakers deal with people who have agendas.
"We are surrounded by special interest groups who are trying to get their particular bills passed and they use a variety of arguments, some of which are specious, some of which are accurate information," Ruchti observed. "It's just part of living in a democracy. So, the voters can figure this out, and they do."
Senate Joint Resolution 101 would make the signature-gathering process for voter initiatives harder, increasing the number of districts where six percent of voters have to sign from 18 to all 35. The resolution would need approval from voters to amend the constitution. Lawmakers proposed the amending resolution because in 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court blocked a similar bill, calling it unconstitutional.
Ruchti added attempts like this are disrupting grassroots efforts.
"The signature gatherers, for example, as a general rule and maybe even almost entirely are volunteers who are just taking their time to do something that they feel is really important," Ruchti pointed out. "That certainly was the way it was with Medicaid expansion."
ID lawmakers seek to increase barriers for passing voter initiatives was first published on Public News Service, and was republished with permission.
Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More