Has the term “woke” replaced the culture wars as the buzz word for Republicans? Vice News went to the Conservative Political Action Conference - better known as CPAC - to ask conservative voters and lawmakers if that’s really the winning message for the 2024 presidential election.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Would replacing the income tax with higher tariffs help ‘struggling Americans’?
Devonyu/Getty Images
Could Trump’s tariffs have unintended consequences that hurt America?
Feb 13, 2025
The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been head-spinning. President Trump and his team were well-prepared to launch their policy agenda, signing over 50 executive orders, the most in a president's first month in more than 40 years. A major focus has been economic policy, first with immigration raids, which were quickly followed by announcements of tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trade partners.
The tariff announcements have followed a meandering and confusing course. President Trump announced the first tariffs on February 1, but within 24 hours, he suspended the tariffs on Mexico and Canada in favor of “negotiations.” Mexico and Canada agreed to enforce their borders better to stop migrants and fentanyl imports, which the Trump administration called a victory. Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, the enforcement measures were substantially the same as what both countries were already planning to do.
Then, on February 10, the president announced new tariffs on steel and aluminum, and this time added the European Union, Brazil, and other countries to the list with Mexico, Canada, and China. Like the boy who cried wolf, it’s hard for the world to know if Trump will stick, withdraw, or add to these new tariffs.
Looking deeper, it seems clear that the tariffs are used more as political theater than an actual new economic policy. For example, in the case of Canada, less than 2% of fentanyl imports come from our northern neighbor. In fact, Canada imports almost as much fentanyl from the United States as the US imports from Canada. And the vast majority of people smuggling fentanyl into the US are native-born Americans, not immigrants.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So, is Trump's strategy to use tariffs to keep the targeted countries in a state of perpetual uncertainty? Perplexingly, Trump and his key trade advisors are no longer talking much about two of his original rationales for tariffs, namely to revive US manufacturing and provide revenue to the US government.
Indeed, Scott Bessent, Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury, has argued that tariffs could be “a useful tool for achieving the president’s foreign policy objectives,” not economic goals.
However, at this rate, the Trump policy may amount to little more than a one-time instrument of coercion and possibly have a limited impact. Once you use it, the targeted country will not only retaliate with tariffs against the US but also look for other markets and trading partners for its businesses and goods.
Not surprisingly, even some US business leaders have begun to complain that navigating the on-again-off-again tariffs is making it more challenging to run their own businesses.
Trumponomics = the new mercantilism?
While the Trump tariff policy so far looks unfocused and fairly ineffective, it would be a mistake to think it is not impacting. Amidst the roller coaster uncertainty, another more subtle economic shock is occurring that could deeply impact global commerce.
That’s because the mere threat of tariffs is a direct repudiation of the free-trade policies that have guided the bipartisan “Washington consensus” for over 30 years, ever since US President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in December 1993. The Washington consensus has guided Democrats and Republicans in the global economic policy of the EU, Japan, China, Brazil, India, and more moderate-sized nations.
Now, each of the targeted nations must decide whether to retaliate by slapping their tariffs on the US and launching a trade war in which each country will seek other aligned nations to foster more closely integrated networks and supply chains.
So Trump’s “I’ll blow your house down” threats of tariffs could dramatically impact global economic policy, and not necessarily for the better. This could well return global trade to the mercantilist days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in which the global rules were more chaotic and transactional. If the US and other governments follow through with harder-hitting tariffs, that may launch a new era of trade protectionism that the world has not seen since World War II.
Historically, tariffs were usually deployed to protect certain key industries from foreign competitors — for example, a surge of imported tires from China that hurt US tire makers or Richard Nixon promising Japan he would return Okinawa, which hosted several US military bases, but only if Japan sent fewer textiles to the US.
Trump's approach is a clear departure since he threatens to deploy tariffs to strongarm concessions over an expanding range of issues, whether immigration, fentanyl, or even territorial expansion, such as in Greenland, Panama, or Canada.
This has already prompted China’s Ministry of Commerce to protest that the Trump administration’s tariffs “seriously undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system, damage the foundation of economic and trade cooperation…and disrupt the stability of global industry supply chains.” So, in an odd twist, the Trump administration has allowed China’s authoritarian government to position itself as the reasonable voice of trade balance and fairness, an advocate for the nations targeted by Trump.
At this rate, other countries may come to believe the US is an unreliable trading partner. However, it is still early in Trump’s term, and the future is difficult to predict. A reasonable alternative policy would be to levy limited tariffs to incentivize specific trading partnerships.
But even that is a double-edged sword, with some trade experts calling tariffs a “fruit and vegetable tax” as it could increase prices for many grocery items since Mexico is Americans’ source for 69% of fresh vegetables and 51% of fresh fruit. Canada provides $125 billion in crude oil and petroleum products. The EU provides pharmaceuticals, machinery, and autos, and China ships consumer electronics, autos, plastics, and much much more.
In the end, Trump’s tariff threats may backfire if $15 eggs appear on grocery store shelves before the midterm elections. High prices defeated the last president, and they could well defeat this one, too.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Individuals protesting.
Gabrielle Chalk
When Power Protects Predators: How U.S. Rape Culture Silences Survivors
Feb 13, 2025
On November 5, 2024—the night of the most anticipated election cycle for residents of the United States—thousands gathered around the country, sitting with friends in front of large-screen TVs, optimistic and ready to witness the election of the next president of the United States.
As the hours of election night stretched on and digital state maps turned red or blue with each counted ballot, every 68 seconds a woman was sexually assaulted in the U.S., an estimate calculated by the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).
Despite this, the result was clear, the majority of U.S. residents chose to elect a leader who has not just boasted about violating women but has actively promoted a system that thrives on silencing, exploiting, and devaluing them.
Deep-rooted rape culture isn’t just thriving—it’s being institutionalized. Survivors are neglected at every turn: untested rape kits gather dust, men accused of sexually violating women rise to power, and even a person found liable in court for sexual assault can be re-elected to the highest office in the land.
Harassing slogans like “Your Body, My Choice” continue to mock survivors' pain, while justice remains out of reach for far too many. This isn’t just a failure of the system—it’s an indictment of a culture that prioritizes power over accountability, leaving survivors to go up against a legal system that should instead be accompanying them.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
A NATION SILENT AMIDST A SEXUAL VIOLENCE CRISIS
In the weeks following the 2024 election, the President selected five men for senior government positions who have either been accused of rape or sexual misconduct or have been entangled in serious allegations over their mistreatment of women, reflecting a troubling societal acceptance of the disregard for women, their safety, and their rights.
A January 2024 study, published by JAMA Internal Medicine1, revealed that in the years following the overturn of Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court decision that stripped women in the U.S. of their Constitutional right to access abortion healthcare, 64,000 pregnancies in 14 U.S. states resulted from rape.
Imagine if this figure is extrapolated to include all 50 states—and what that means about how many rapes are occurring in the U.S. overall? Despite this alarming data, the conversation around sexual violence remains disturbingly muted.
MANY 1000’S OF RAPE KITS LEFT UNTESTED
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of rape kits remain untested in evidence rooms across the country, sometimes for decades, each representing a survivor’s harrowing experience. Despite repeated calls for reform, the crisis persists due to a range of issues including inadequate funding, lack of standardized testing protocols, and inaction.
In many cases, untested kits have allowed repeat offenders to remain at large, causing further distress to their victims and putting countless others at risk. This negligence reflects a deeper cultural apathy toward sexual violence, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive reform and survivor-centered justice.
Sexual violence leaves lasting physical, emotional, and psychological scars. The thousands of untested rape kits and pregnancies resulting from rape are stark examples of a deep-rooted problem. And the same administration that assumes power today is responsible for the repeal of a woman's right to bodily autonomy in the Dobbs decision, resulting in a swath of state-level efforts to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape. Yet, societal reluctance to confront and address sexual violence perpetuates a cycle of trauma and silence.
OBSTACLES TO JUSTICE FOR RAPE SURVIVORS
Survivors of sexual violence face immense legal obstacles in seeking justice2, including loopholes in sexual violence laws. From the moment they decide to report the crime, they often encounter institutional misogyny that further compounds their trauma.
Police officers, judges, and prosecutors—key figures in ensuring justice—often display biases and prejudices based on a victim’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, class, disability, or other personal characteristics. Institutional misogyny reinforces harmful stereotypes, undermining victims’ credibility and dignity. This fosters an environment where survivors feel discouraged from seeking the justice they deserve.
In 2024 alone, numerous examples of legal frameworks and officials allowing perpetrators to go unpunished came to light. For example, Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York was overturned because judges ruled testimony about his past behavior was inadmissible, even though federal law permits the inclusion of such evidence in sexual violence cases due to the difficulty of proving these crimes.
Additionally, these frameworks often place the burden of providing evidence on the survivor, making the legal process re-traumatizing3 and one that promotes impunity.
CHANGING HOW CONSENT IS INTERPRETED IN THE LAW
Sex without consent should always be considered rape. International human rights standards4 define rape as based on the absence of freely given consent, taking into account coercive or exploitative circumstances. This establishes rape as a violation against the right to physical, sexual, and psychological integrity.
According to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)5—one of the most widely ratified international treaties, though notably one not ratified by the U.S.—inconsistencies in how rape is legally defined, particularly in regards to what constitutes consent, undermine efforts to effectively protect women and girls from sexual violence.
In some countries, the legal system defines rape as involving the use of physical force6 and often excludes any other form of coercion or power imbalance between the two parties. These force-based legal definitions of rape allow for certain types of rape to go unpunished and gravely limit the extent to which crimes of rape can be successfully prosecuted.
The United States Department of Justice announced an amendment to the federal definition of rape7 to include a lack of consent in 2012. This was a very positive step. However, as we’ve seen, even when the law is based on a consent-based definition of rape, stereotypes and rape myths can hinder many prosecutions where additional physical violence was not present. This demonstrates why it is so critical to clarify the law fully and ensure proper implementation.
Among all these obstacles, what remains particularly harmful to survivors is the taboo nature of speaking about rape within many communities. Cultural and social stigmas have prevented countless survivors from seeking the support and justice they need, RAINN estimates that only 310 out of every 1,000 sexual assaults are reported to police. This enables the cycle of violence to continue unchecked.
HOW TO END SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Survivors need comprehensive support systems, including medical care, counseling, and legal assistance. However, support must go beyond immediate aftermaths. We need to create an environment where survivors feel safe to come forward without fear of stigma or retribution. This involves a cultural shift towards unequivocally condemning sexual violence and actively preventing it.
Breaking this cycle requires a concerted effort from all sectors of society, including policymakers, law enforcement, healthcare providers, educators, and the media.
Addressing sexual violence extends beyond supporting survivors; it requires promoting prevention by creating a society of equal respect for each other and for bodily integrity and reforming the criminal justice system to recognize legal gaps and the severity of the issue to protect all women.
If RAINN estimates that 1 in 6 women in the U.S.8 experience rape or attempted rape during their lifetime, why is sexual violence still a taboo topic and not being addressed as the epidemic that it is? Look around the room at the next large gathering you attend and try to get a sense of what that means.
Then, imagine a world where women and girls don’t have to worry about who is going to assault them and when; a world where they can focus on living their best lives instead of how to protect themselves. No front door keys ready in their hands. No turning down invitations simply because coming home after dark seems too risky. No endless vigilance for threats that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
That world is possible, and it starts with all of us agreeing that sexual violence must end, that it’s not a survivor's fault they were raped, and that our legal system must do more to bring perpetrators to justice, instead of promoting impunity and the cycle of rape as a whole.
Mel Bailey is the Communications Officer for North America and the Ending Sexual Violence global campaign for Equality Now. She is a former international journalist and videographer committed to highlighting how inclusive legislation is key to addressing gender discrimination globally. Twitter: @melb4freepress
1. JAMA Internal Medicine Rape-Related Pregnancies in the 14 US States With Total Abortion Bans https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2814274
2. Equality Now, Failure to Protect:How Discrimiatory Sexual Violence Laws and Practices are Hurting Women and Girls https://equalitynow.org/resource/failure-to-protect-how-discriminatory-sexual-violence-laws-and-practices-are-hurting-women-girls-and-adolescents-in-the-americas/
3. Columbia Law Review, The Evolution of the Legal Definition of Rape https://www.culawreview.org/journal/the-evolution-of-the-legal-definition-of-rape
4. The Instanbul Convention, Details of Treaty No.210, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=210
5. Rape as a Grave and Systemic Human Rights Violation and GenderBased Violence Against Women, Expert Meeting Group Report https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/SR/Call_on_Rape/EGM_EN-SR_Report.pdf
6. Federal Bureau of Investigations - Forceable Rape, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape#:~:text=Forcible%20rape%2C%20as%20defined%20in,other%20sex%20offenses%20are%20excluded.
7. US Department of Justice, An Updated Definition of Rape, https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
8. Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), Scope of the Problem: Statistics, How Often Does Sexual Assault Occur in the United States? https://rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem#:~:text=Everyone%20Is%20Affected%20by%20Sexual%20Violence&text=1%20out%20of%20every%206,completed%2C%202.8%25%20attempted).&text=About%203%25%20of%20American%20men,completed%20rape%20in%20their%20lifetime.Keep ReadingShow less
Senator Ted Cruz.
Sergio Flores/Getty Images
Where is Ted Cruz When American Democracy Needs Him?
Feb 13, 2025
The president is ignoring the law when he isn’t intentionally violating it. He is dissolving federal agencies created by Congress and impounding funds even though that is clearly prohibited. He is governing by issuing executive orders and even claims the power to roll back birthright citizenship, ignoring the Constitution itself.
All of this and an unelected oligarch given free rein by the president to ransack government departments and threaten civil servants. If Americans weren’t living it, it would be hard to believe that this could be happening in a nation founded on principles of limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
We need a champion of constitutional government, someone who calls themselves a “constitutionalist” and has spoken and written powerfully in defense of the separation of powers and in opposition to the “imperial presidency.”
I nominate Republican Senator Ted Cruz. American democracy needs him.
Before explaining why I am turning to Senator Cruz, let me note that today, Republicans in Congress are mostly ignoring what President Trump is doing or writing it off as just the sort of thing presidents should do. Take House Speaker Mike Johnson.
As an article in The Independent notes, “In a press briefing at the Capitol on Wednesday night, Johnson was quizzed on how DOGE, an advisory body tasked with cutting programs and slashing federal spending, and its unelected leader have assumed powers supposed to be reserved to Congress.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“Is there an inconsistency,” he was asked, “by Republicans on one hand, where we’ve heard for years now, ‘All we want is to not have unelected bureaucrats in charge of things downtown,’ and yet ceding Article I powers to the executive branch under Elon Musk?”
“No,” Johnson replied. The Speaker went on to explain, “You know me. I’m a fierce advocate and defender of Article I.”
But, instead of defending the prerogatives of Congress to appropriate funds and establish or close federal agencies, Johnson turned his fire to the media.
“There’s a gross overreaction in the media to what is happening.” Then, Johnson mischaracterized and minimized the gravity of what President Trump and Elon Musk are doing.
“The executive branch of government in our system has the right to evaluate how executive branch agencies are operating and to ensure that not only the intent of Congress in funding mechanisms but also the stewardship of precious American taxpayer dollars is being handled well.”
Evaluating is one thing. Taking unilateral action is another.
Exercising stewardship of tax dollars is one thing. Refusing to use them for the purposes for which they were appropriated is another.
Recall that when fifty years ago, Caspar Weinberger, former President Nixon’s deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, told Congress that “The Constitution empowered the president to decide whether to spend money.” It precipitated what one commentator rightly called “a constitutional crisis, since the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.”
Congress responded by passing the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. They thought “they had fixed the nation’s pocketbook, starting by limiting the power of Nixon to disrupt it.”
Unlike Speaker Johnson, Carl Albert, who was Speaker during the impoundment crisis, said that Nixon had crossed a red line. Impoundments, he said, “Strike at the very heart of Congress’ power of the purse, jeopardizing the explicit constitutional right of Congress to appropriate monies.”
Citing the American Founders, Albert explained, "Control over spending is the birthright of an independent and responsible legislature. This birthright traces its lineage back to the determination of the nation's Founders to take away the power of the purse from the Royal Governors of the colonies and vest it in their own legislative representatives.”
“Take away this power,” Albert concluded, “and Congress is nothing more than a debating society.”
Many have already written about Congressional acquiescence in the present moment and the threat it poses to constitutional democracy. As the AP reports, “Congress is proving little match for DOGE as wary lawmakers watch it march through the bureaucracy.” The AP quotes Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota who acknowledged that “DOGE provides ‘cover’ for some Republicans who want to cut federal funds when Congress has failed to do so.”
Those who are now criticizing the Trump Administration and Congress’ inaction, frequently refer to the eloquent defenses that the American Founders, like James Madison, offered of the Constitutional design and the separation of powers. It is always bracing to be reminded of what they had to say about liberty and despotism.
Perhaps, we don’t have to go back two hundred years for inspiration. Perhaps, we can draw on the wisdom of a modern-day James Madison.
That brings me back to Senator Cruz. Not today’s Ted Cruz, who rose to the defense of Trump/Musk just yesterday and denounced what he called “hysterical, doomsday scenarios” about the collapse of constitutional government, but the 2015 version.
Recall that back then, Barack Obama was in the White House. Back then, Senator Cruz published a piece entitled “The Imperial Obama Presidency and the Demise of Checks and Balances.”
Back then, he sounded much more Madisonian than he does today. Back then, the senator was quite comfortable with hysteria and doomsday scenarios.
He warned apocalyptically, "Under President Obama, America has witnessed an unprecedented expansion of presidential power. This is not merely the observation of political opponents.” Cruz quoted approvingly Professor Jonathan Turley who said, “What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an über-presidency . . . where the President can act unilaterally.”
Cruz called the president to task, saying Obama has “too often resorted to unilateral executive action to override acts of Congress or to implement policies that he was unable to enact through the proper constitutional process.” He reminded his readers that “Article I of the Constitution vests Congress, not the President, with the sole power to legislate. Article II, by contrast, charges the President with the responsibility to “take care” that the laws enacted by Congress be “faithfully executed.”
“Given this division of power,” Cruz flatly stated in a way that would have made Madison proud, “the President cannot act until Congress does.”
“President Obama,” he complained, “sees congressional inaction, not as a limitation on his power to act, but as a license to act. This is the logic of Caesar, not the logic of a president in a constitutional republic.”
Cruz blamed much of this on “Congress’s refusal to fulfill its constitutional role. For far too many members of Congress,” he observed, “partisan loyalty to the President and ideological commitment to his goals outweigh any interest in asserting their own institutional rights and prerogatives as the people’s representatives. They are all too willing to hand power over to the President.”
He called on his colleagues and the American people to be “constitutionalists—those who will respect and adhere to the constitutional design above all else, including party loyalty and ideology. The future of our constitutional order, which secures our liberty,” Cruz concluded, “depends on it.”
Cruz was right in 2015, and he would be well advised to heed his own advice now.
Democracy and the rule of law depend on the willingness of people like the Senator to adhere to constitutional principles even when doing so gores their partisan oxen. That is a hard test, not just for Senator Cruz and Speaker Johnson, but for all of us.
Never more so, than at this moment, does our Republic seem to be on the brink of doing what John Adams foresaw in 1814. “Remember,” Adams said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself.”
“There never was a Democracy. Yet, that did not commit suicide.” What Ted Cruz wrote a decade ago offers us a way to avoid that fate.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.Keep ReadingShow less
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
Load More