Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

Opinion

The False Promise of Dismantling DEI

An illustration of the letters DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Getty Images, Just_Super

After President Trump signed an executive order that targets diversity programs, protocols, and practitioners, my phone lit up with calls from pastors, academics, and corporate leaders. These weren't just concerned professionals seeking guidance; they were Americans watching their country wrestle, yet again, with its perpetual struggle between progress and retrenchment. The order, cloaked in the language of fairness and merit, represents something far more insidious: a calculated attempt to redefine American excellence by narrowing its parameters.

As global competition intensifies and innovation becomes increasingly crucial to national security, we are witnessing a deliberate effort to constrict America's talent pipeline. In my work across for-profit organizations, non-profit board rooms, and halls of tertiary education, I've observed firsthand how diversity and equity initiatives serve as crucial mechanisms for identifying overlooked talent, fostering innovative thinking, and offering unprecedented opportunities that have historically given America its competitive edge. The incoming administration's approach doesn't just threaten social order; it imperils our national interests in ways few seem willing to acknowledge.


This assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how excellence emerges in complex societies. When I counsel organizations on building inclusive cultures, I emphasize that diversity isn't a charitable endeavor—it's a strategic imperative. The same nation that celebrated sending diverse teams to Mars now seems fearful of diverse teams in its federal agencies. This contradiction exposes the hollow core of the administration's logic: they claim to champion merit while systematically undermining the very conditions that allow merit to flourish.

The current backlash against DEI programs follows a familiar American pattern: progress, followed by panic, followed by extreme rollbacks. But this iteration carries unique dangers in our rapidly evolving global landscape. When I speak with young entrepreneurs and researchers, they express disappointment and genuine concern about America's future competitiveness. They understand intuitively what the Trump administration seems determined to ignore: innovation thrives on diversity of thought, experience, perspective, and people. The executive order doesn't just harm historically marginalized groups; it hamstrings America's ability to compete in an increasingly multipolar world.

What's particularly troubling is how this move misreads the actual challenges facing American interests. In conversations with business and civic leaders, as well as educational administrators and alike, the real struggle isn't with diversity initiatives but with maintaining our nation’s leadership in key sectors, enterprises, marketplaces, and social consequences. The aforementioned draws from the broadest possible talent pool and creates environments where innovation can flourish. The Trump administration's approach does the opposite, creating artificial constraints on the nation’s brain pool and workforce, and at the moment, we need to expand it.

Paths forward require a fundamental reframing of what's at stake. DEI isn't merely about social justice or corporate policy—it's about America's place in the world. When I work with organizations that are implementing such initiatives, we focus on creating systems that identify and nurture talent wherever it exists. These programs don't lower standards; they eliminate artificial barriers that keep qualified individuals from contributing their full potential. The administration's characterization of these efforts as "reverse discrimination" reveals more about their short-sightedness than the programs and practices they seek to dismantle.

Any response to this challenge must be both principled and pragmatic. As I advise leaders who seek my counsel, retreating isn't an option—but neither is mere resistance. We need a new narrative that connects DEI to America's core strengths: innovation, competitiveness, and the ability to adapt and evolve. As one suggested, a narrative means moving beyond defensive postures to articulate a vision of institutional excellence that embraces diversity, not as a burden needing to be managed but as an asset to be leveraged.

Leaders across the public, private, and third sectors must be more assertive, not diminutive. For example, when major corporations and industry leaders speak about diversity as a competitive necessity rather than a social obligation or political expediency, the conversation shifts from being ideological to strategic. Likewise, “lighthouse” institutions must step up to fill the void left by federal agencies' retreat, not just with funding but with new models of inclusive excellence that demonstrate why diversity initiatives are essential to institutional success.

The ultimate tragedy of the administration's approach lies in its profound misreading of American history. Our nation's most significant achievements from the Manhattan Project to the digital revolution emerged from our ability to harness diverse talents toward common goals. By attempting to turn back the clock on diversity initiatives, the administration risks turning off the engine of American innovation. The answer isn't to retreat from our commitment to inclusive excellence but to deepen it, grounding it more firmly in our national interest and competitive necessity.

Navigating this challenging moment brings to remembrance this fact: American progress has never been linear. Each period of retrenchment has eventually given way to renewal. Many times in ways that strengthen versus weaken our nation's fabric. Through deliberate action and results, our response must demonstrate that diversity isn't just about doing good—it's about holding to the truth that all are equal as endowed by their Creator, not a Commander-in-Chief.

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community, " and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.


Read More

Two soccer, football, players colliding over the ball.

Alex Freeman #16 of the United States competes for the ball against Jeremy Doku #11 of Belgium during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Round of 16 match between USA and Belgium at Seattle Stadium on July 06, 2026 in Seattle, Washington.

Luke Hales/Getty Images

World Cup in Living Color

Scan the faces on this summer’s European World Cup squads: France, England, Germany, the Netherlands. The jerseys hang on shoulders brown, black, olive, fair. These are not the sanitized, single-story teams that once stood for “nation.” They’re unruly, multicolored, undeniably global. And for once, the United States—so often an outlier—seems less exceptional and more like a willing participant in this reimagining of who “belongs” on the field.

Football—let’s call it what it is, the world’s game—has always reflected the societies that shape it, sometimes as a mirror, sometimes as a funhouse. For decades, European countries clung to self-mythologies, their national teams meant to be pure expressions of heritage: the most French of Frenchmen, the most English of the English. But the game, like the world, refused to stand still. The children and grandchildren of immigrants kept arriving, first in club academies and then on national teams, until no one could deny what was already on the field.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Vice President JD Vance

U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks to members of the media at the Buergenstock Resort Lake Lucerne, after the U.S. and Iran held high-level talks at the Lake Lucerne Summit on June 22, 2026 near Stansstad, Switzerland.

Pool / Getty Images

The Feigned Confusion of JD Vance: Erasure by Design

"What did Black people do to this administration that has allowed it to really stigmatize folks of color?" Whoopi Goldberg asked Vice President JD Vance last week, when he joined The View to discuss his new memoir. Rather than answer the question, Vance's first response was to feign ignorance. But he wasn't confused. Vance has simply learned that feigned confusion buys him room to say what an entire administration actually believes—not that Black people are hated, but that we are an inconvenience to be erased.

Goldberg and her cohost, Sunny Hostin, followed up with specifics: the removal of Black history from government buildings, Black military leaders sidelined, and contributions denigrated at every turn. Vance's response was to insist everyone is welcome in their political coalition. It wasn't an answer.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Night at Chase Field Revealed a Different America

Mexican Heritage Night, June 4, 2026

A Night at Chase Field Revealed a Different America

I didn’t love seeing the charge for the baseball tickets hit my credit card. Like Americans, I’ve watched expenses and discretionary costs rise. A night at the ballpark felt like a luxury rather than a routine outing. Still, I wanted time with my two grandsons—one a devoted Los Angeles Dodgers fan, the other a loyal Arizona Diamondbacks fan.

That alone promised an interesting evening.

Keep ReadingShow less