DEI Programs: From a Rapid Surge to an Abrupt Dismantlement

2018 New Horizons in Conservation: Addressing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Challenges Conference. Courtesy of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability from Ann Arbor.

The term DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has been a popular topic of discussion in multiple political debates and appears in various online articles. Proponents of DEI programs argue that these initiatives are extremely beneficial, as they enhance organizations’ problem-solving by promoting a diverse array of perspectives. Those who oppose DEI programs believe that they violate merit-based principles, are inherently discriminatory, and create social divisions. As this is an extremely contested issue, it is helpful to understand why DEI programs exist in the first place.

DEI programs were created in order to allow individuals from marginalized groups who historically faced severe disadvantages in social, economic, and educational circumstances to have access to opportunities that they might not have been able to acquire without these programs. In addition, the programs serve as a method to increase representation of these groups in numerous settings. DEI is administered across multiple environments, including the corporate, educational, governmental, and non-profit sectors.

These programs evolved from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and developed through considerable social change in the early 2000s, as employees began to desire working for companies that valued a diverse workforce and sought to be part of an environment that addressed systemic barriers to equitable access to opportunities. Major corporations, such as Apple, Microsoft, and Target, responded to employee demand, with over 80% of organizations adopting DEI programs.

However, progress on DEI programs has stalled, with many being scaled back or fully removed from the public and private sectors. This began with President Donald Trump’s (R) second term in office, during which he signed a series of executive orders targeting DEI programs. These executive orders were designed to terminate all DEI programs in the federal government, repeal prior executive orders that sought to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, and challenge programs of large nonprofits or institutions of higher education that advance equity through legal action.

These executive orders have been making a significant impact on many institutions and companies that previously incorporated DEI initiatives. In 2025, major corporations such as Walmart, Google, and Meta announced that they were partially ending their diversity initiatives due to the fear of social media backlash and pressure from the Trump administration. As a result, over 2,600 people who worked for DEI initiatives lost their jobs.

Several lawsuits have also been filed against companies or institutions that incorporate DEI, with many anti-DEI parties being extremely successful in their efforts. Notably, in 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action policies at American universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and should be terminated. Now, universities must have admissions processes that are “colorblind,” meaning they may not consider the applicant’s race as a factor in their admissions decision.

As anti-DEI groups argue, terminating DEI initiatives would mean that applicants for college admission or potential employees of a company would be selected solely on merit, rather than filling quotas based on race, sex, or other forms of identification.

Now that DEI programs have been challenged by executive orders and lawsuits, the question arises: What would happen if these programs were completely eliminated from our society? According to Dr. Robyn Short, CEO of Workplace Peace Institute, a consulting and research firm whose goal is “to bring peace and dignity to the workplace”, dismantling DEI frameworks will exacerbate existing inequalities, erode workplace culture, and prevent much-needed innovation.

Short claims that “DEI initiatives foster environments where employees feel valued and empowered to contribute their unique experiences, which drives organizational success.” Without these types of environments, workplaces are more prone to inequalities and abuses of power, with marginalized employees having limited opportunities for advancement.

If these programs are being shut down forcefully, what does that mean for the future of universities and workplaces that want to continue with DEI? In some cases, corporations are actively fighting against the discontinuation of DEI programs. Costco, whose 98% of shareholders voted against an anti-DEI proposal in early 2025, and JPMorgan Chase, whose CEO, Jamie Dimon, has affirmed a commitment to programs for underrepresented groups, are among them.

And in other instances, companies are trying to find loopholes in these anti-DEI restrictions by embedding DEI into core operations rather than treating it as a separate initiative. This can be seen in the rebranding of programs with stated values, such as “inclusion” or “belonging,” to reduce public attention on the company’s goals.

Under the current administration, DEI programs will continue to face challenges, which will greatly affect the makeup of students at universities and employees in certain positions. This drastic change will affect many people who relied on these programs to access higher education or jobs. It is possible that, once Trump’s term ends, institutions and corporations will bring DEI back as a central part of their agenda. However, anti-DEI members could continue to vocalize their opposition to the breakup of these programs. Ultimately, the current DEI backlash will continue to affect how universities build their student bodies and companies hire their employees.