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

Liberty and Justice for Some

Stephanie Toliver examines book bans, transgender rights in Kansas, the impacts of ICE detentions, and the history of conditional equality in America’s schools, libraries, and churches.

Getty Images, Catherine McQueen

Liberty and Justice for Some

Late February brought two stories that most Americans filed under separate categories. In Kansas, the state government invalidated the driver's licenses and birth certificates of transgender residents, erasing legal identities with the stroke of a pen. In New York, a Columbia University neuroscience student named Ellie Aghayeva was taken from her campus apartment by federal agents who misrepresented themselves to get through the door and held by ICE until the city's mayor personally petitioned for her release. Different people, different states, different mechanisms. The same message: for some of us, the promises of this nation were always conditional.

And yet, many Americans hold onto the lie of equality because acknowledging the truth would mean that the foundational promise we have repeated since childhood — liberty and justice for all — was never meant for all of us. It is far easier to accept comfortable fictions than to reckon with a truth that destabilizes everything you thought you knew. That meritocracy is real. That all are equal. That the documents we carry and the institutions we enter will protect us the same way they protect everyone else. But for many of us, there was never a fiction to hold onto. We were born into the conditions the lie was designed to obscure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two individuals Skiing in the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Paralympic Games.

Oksana Masters of Team United States celebrates after winning gold in the Para Cross Country Skiing Sprint Sitting Final on day four of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Paralympic Games at Tesero Cross-Country Skiing Stadium on March 10, 2026 in Val di Fiemme, Italy.

Getty Images, Buda Mendes

The Paralympics Challenge Everything We Think We Know About Sports

If you’re a sports fan, you likely watched coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano Cortina. But will you watch the Paralympics when approximately 665 athletes are expected in Italy to compete in the Para sports of alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-country skiing, ice hockey, snowboarding, and wheelchair curling?

The Paralympics, so-called because they are “parallel” to the Olympics, stand alone as the globe’s premier sporting event for elite athletes with disabilities. According to the International Paralympic Committee, 4,400 disabled athletes competed in the 2024 Paris Summer Games in track and field, swimming, and twenty other sports.

Keep ReadingShow less
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