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

Peggy Flanagan Could Make History for Native American Women in November. She’s Not the Only One.

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, speaks at a volunteer appreciation event at Black Heart of Saint Paul on August 8, 2026 in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Peggy Flanagan Could Make History for Native American Women in November. She’s Not the Only One.

Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan easily won Minnesota’s Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat, according to Decision Desk HQ, putting her a step closer to becoming the first Native American woman elected to the chamber.

Flanagan, a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, is not the only Native woman who could make history this year: In New Mexico, former Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member, is widely expected to become New Mexico’s next governor after winning the Democratic nomination in June.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defense Secretary Hegseth Testifies Before Senate Appropriations Committee

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on July 21, 2026 in Washington, DC

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Can We Fire Hegseth Yet?

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is on a warpath against a lot of things, but one of them is women. Just this week, the New York Times reported that the percentage of high-ranking officer nominations going to women is at its lowest level in at least 25 years. As obsessed as Hegseth is with firing–and intervening in the promotions of–qualified officers in the name of making the U.S. military the most lethal force in the world, Hegseth continues to offer grounds for his own dismissal. Perhaps the firing of all these women is simply a symptom of Hegseth’s infection of the Pentagon.

Female service members did have it tough before Hegseth. Women already saw a separation rate 28% higher than men, largely attributed to sexual assault. In states with abortion bans, the uniform offers no protection against healthcare deserts created by Dobbs; the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have left women with less access to care than they would have in a federal prison. Perhaps most harrowing of all: women are more likely to be killed or raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy. But President Trump, a sex offender, appointed Hegseth, an accused sex offender, to take the helm.

Keep ReadingShow less
Travis Scott, Benny Safdie, Elliot Page, Corey Hawkins, Tom Holland, Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan, Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Lupita Nyong'o, Charlize Theron, John Leguizamo, Zendaya, Samantha Morton, Himesh Patel, Jon Bernthal, and Logan Marshall-Green attend the premiere of "The Odyssey" presented by Universal Pictures on July 14, 2026 in New York City.

Travis Scott, Benny Safdie, Elliot Page, Corey Hawkins, Tom Holland, Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan, Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Lupita Nyong'o, Charlize Theron, John Leguizamo, Zendaya, Samantha Morton, Himesh Patel, Jon Bernthal, and Logan Marshall-Green attend the premiere of "The Odyssey" presented by Universal Pictures on July 14, 2026 in New York City.

Mike Coppola/Getty Images

The Odyssey Isn’t Real, But American Diversity Is

After Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey was released in theaters, Elon Musk declared he would use Grok to create a more “historically accurate” version of the ancient epic poem. The uproar over the film’s supposedly woke casting has been loud and sustained, but the people most upset have ignored a pretty significant detail: The Odyssey is not real. It is a story filled with gods, goddesses, and violent monsters who are apparently more historically plausible than the presence of people of color. Even the fact that Greek, Asian, and African peoples were in contact throughout the ancient world is less believable, it seems, than a sentient whirlpool.

The goal was never historical accuracy, though. It never is. The same logic that scrubs people of color from ancient epics is the logic that scrubs us from American history because in both cases, the sanitized version requires our absence. America becomes a space of prosperity and hope for all if enslavement is deleted. It becomes a benevolent nation welcoming to everyone if internment camps and detention centers are excluded. It becomes a beacon of cultural mixing if the genocide of Indigenous peoples is overlooked.

Keep ReadingShow less
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