Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Efforts To Eliminate DEI

Opinion

Two groups of people approaching each other over a chasm, ready to shake hands.

Two groups of people approaching each other over a chasm, ready to shake hands.

Getty Images, timsa

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) explaining in practical terms what the new administration’s executive orders and other official actions mean for all of us. Virtually all of these actions spring from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page blueprint for government action over the next four years. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies already implemented in countries such as Hungary to erode democratic norms and adopt authoritarian approaches to governing.

Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.


In Part 2 of this series, we address the Executive Orders (EO) and related actions aimed at eliminating any and all measures deemed to advance “diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).” That phrase lacks a precise legal definition but embraces all aspects of the legal and social infrastructure designed to fulfill the constitutional promise of equal protection for all. Despite the vigorous efforts to eliminate all traces of such measures from the federal government, these executive orders cannot repeal longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws, and many have been challenged in ongoing litigation.

From Advancing Equality To Distorting Civil Rights Law

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump has unleashed an avalanche of moves meant to end lawful efforts to advance diversity and ensure a level playing field. In doing so, the administration seeks a wholesale rollback of efforts to eliminate historic and enduring inequalities. Its hastily implemented actions have included, for example, rescinding a host of recent and longstanding executive orders and actions promoting equal opportunity, ending programs that directly - or even by mere implication - advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), terminating research projects, and calling for investigations and punishment of law firms and educational institutions it accuses of clinging to DEI goals.

These actions are framed in neutral terms that speak of advancing “merit” and “fairness.” The real impact, however, is to erase the history of discrimination in this country and eliminate efforts to ensure fairness and a level playing field for historically marginalized groups.

Project 2025 – Calling For An End To DEI Programs

Project 2025 lays out a broad and detailed plan for the complete obliteration of DEI in the federal government, including mandates, training, policies, programs, and concepts at every level. This includes banning such words as diversity, equity, inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, reproductive rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity, in federal rules, regulations, contracts, grants, and legislation. Project 2025 also advocates for the investigation of DEI practices and calls for measures to ensure that race, gender, and other protected characteristics are not considered in hiring and other decision-making.

Why This Matters

This broad assault on DEI aims to undermine, if not eliminate, all laws, policies, and programs designed to advance equal opportunity and comply with established anti-discrimination laws. Alarmingly, the reach of these actions extends far beyond the federal government. Project 2025 also makes its way into the management of private law firms, universities, and cultural organizations, aiming to undercut laws and policies built up over decades to create a level playing field for everyone. Only Congress can create laws; the president cannot repeal laws by firing those who enforce them, cutting programs, and deleting information from websites.

The breathtaking sweep of these edicts should alarm anyone concerned about core democratic principles of free speech and fair treatment.

Here are just a few examples of how the actions:

Restrict knowledge by:

  • Censoring what can be taught in schools and erasing accounts of history, particularly with respect to race and gender that don’t comport with the current administration’s orthodoxy.
  • Purging hundreds of words --including “advocacy,” “belong,” “black,” “disability,” “gender,” “injustice,” and “women,” to name but a few--from government documents and websites. In many instances, this wholesale purge has swept up and eliminated web pages that have nothing to do with DEI.
  • Rewriting historical accounts. For example: In two reactionary acts of censorship that led to so much backlash they had to be reversed, the administration wiped all references to Harriet Tubman from the National Park Service's Underground Railroad webpage and removed mention of the military career of Major League Baseball legend Jackie Robinson from the Defense Department's website. A defense department order would purge books critical of racism but would preserve volumes defending white power.

Threaten health and safety and limit scientific advances by:

Perpetuate inequality by:

Chill dissent and quash challenges to the administration’s approved viewpoints by:

  • Threatening and instituting investigations of educational institutions and law firms, among others, that have taken stands in support of advancing equity for members of historically marginalized groups.

Key Takeaway

These and related actions aim to eradicate decades of progress in eliminating historic inequality. In addition, they intrude on the right of free speech, a core tenet of our democracy.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy is dedicated to galvanizing lawyers “to defend the rule of law in the face of an unprecedented threat to American Democracy.” Its work is not political or partisan.


Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

One of the barbershops participating in the Barbershop Books program.

Photo courtesy of Alvin Irby

Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

Barbershop Books, an organization whose award‑winning literacy programs celebrate, amplify, and affirm the interests of Black boys while inspiring kids to read for fun, has spent more than a decade transforming everyday community spaces into joyful reading hubs. That mission was on full display this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when the organization partnered with a neighborhood barbershop in the Bronx—Flava In Ya Hair—to offer free haircuts and free children’s books to local families.

As families examined stacks of Dog Man, Fly Guy, Captain Underpants, and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, barbershop owner Patrick shared that growing up, reading was associated with negative school experiences and used as a punishment at home. “Go in your room and read!” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

When Hegseth ordered all top brass to assemble in Quantico in September, he declared women could either meet male standards for combat roles or get cut. Strong message, except the military was already doing that, so Hegseth was either oblivious or ignoring decades of history. Confusion aside, it reaffirmed a goal Hegseth has made clear since his Fox News days, when he said, “I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles.” Now, as of January 6th, the Pentagon is planning a six-month review of women in ground combat jobs. It may come as no surprise, but this thinly veiled anti-woman agenda has no tactical security advantage.

When integrating women into combat roles was brought to Congress in 1993, a summary of findings submitted that, “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect . . . women.” Archaic notions of the patriarchy almost outweighed logic; instead, luckily, as combat roles have become available to them, more and more women are now serving, increasing military readiness. As it turns out, women are highly effective in combat. Khris Fuhr, a West Point graduate who worked on gender integration at Army Forces Command, calls this new review "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist." She says an Army study between 2018 to 2023 showed women didn’t just perform well in ground combat units but sometimes scored even better than their male counterparts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Diversity Has Become a Dirty Word. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?

Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).

Keep ReadingShow less