The New Workplace Reality: DEI Retraction Under Trump’s 2025 Executive Orders
- 1 day ago
- 9 min read
Paola García
Edited by Jordan Perlman, Aida Alyasin, Mac Kang, and Sahith Mocharla
In January of 2025, the Trump administration took office and immediately moved to challenge previously fundamental agencies and productive developments through a series of executive orders (EOs). Among the many affected areas, efforts championing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) suffered a significant setback, with specific damages to both federal and private employment sectors. The history of DEI initiatives begins with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Johnson, which prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin during the hiring, firing, and compensation process–– supporting the goal of modern DEI programs [1]. The Act outlined how this law would be enforced by establishing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency with the jurisdiction to sue to ensure that both federal and private employers followed these guidelines [2]. The persistence of DEI throughout the decades stems not from unfounded beliefs but, as determined by Dixon-Fyle et al. of McKinsey & Company (a prominent international consulting firm), from creating impactful change that motivates and improves profitability as well as creativity amongst employees [3]. During the Biden administration, cooperative EOs further supported DEI infrastructure. In EO 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” and EO 14091, “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” President Biden took monumental steps to enforce and improve DEI initiatives. EO 13985 was issued in 2021 to “create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been historically underserved” by establishing a domestic policy council, conducting assessments of equity, and allocating federal resources for improvements [4]. EO 14091 was issued in 2023 to work in conjunction with EO 13985, expanding upon these programs by establishing more government leadership, agencies, and policies with the intent of promoting equity and creating jobs for underserved communities [5]. Support for DEI had, for the most part, only grown, especially through federal initiatives. This consistent development changed under the Trump administration, which has endeavored to explicitly halt these efforts.
According to the Trump administration, DEI creates preferential treatment by establishing programs that benefit select groups. As a result, it has sought to “eradicate illegal and immoral DEI initiatives” through three executive orders: EO 14151, EO 14168, and EO 14173 [6]. These EOs have had an immediate impact on society, with a particular emphasis on dismantling the political and structural framework of DEI in the workplace. The usage of vague language intended to remove diversity programs and other protections for marginalized groups and free identity expression harms workplace equity and prevents socioeconomic equality.
On his first day in office, Trump issued EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” Within this order, Trump targeted Biden’s EO 13985, stating that DEI is an “immense public waste and shameful discrimination” [7]. As a result, EO 14151 moved to remove all programs, policies, training, and activities falling under ‘DEI’ from Federal employment entities. While President Biden intended to provide expansive support for DEI within the Federal government by “ serving every person with equal dignity and respect,” President Trump effectively restricted and limited this progress by impeding Federal programs and employment that contribute to the productive financial and social outputs of diversification [8]. To enforce these new policies, the administration assigned the duties of execution to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Attorney General; indicative of an intent for a systematic approach to integration. Although EO 14151 specifically focused on the Federal government, it provided insight into the rationale behind the EOs that followed, demonstrating President Trump’s effort to not explicitly constrain DEI outside of the guidelines of being, vaguely, “illegal.” This decision permits the government to enforce broad, wide-sweeping generalizations of what “DEI” actually means, only enhanced by the EO’s ‘severability’ clause, which assures that the remainder of the document can remain enforceable if a portion is contested, therefore supporting the conviction of the Trump administration to facilitate this effort through all means and at any scale [9]. EO 14151 is only the first step in the Trump administration’s plan to change, and even dismantle, the role of DEI in American society.
President Trump also signed EO 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth”, advocating that gender should only be considered within the boundaries of sex, or biological terms, and previous actions supporting gender fluidity must not be supported [10]. Within the goals of this EO, the administration prevents any communication that establishes a gender identity outside of biological terms, requires that passports and other government identification documents only show the biological sex, and prevents the use of Federal funds for gender affirming care [11]. Although this EO aims to “defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies,” it functionally does the opposite by targeting the LGBTQ+ community, especially trans individuals [12]. By eliminating the fostering of safe spaces within the workplace and challenging a person’s autonomy over their gender identity, the EO creates instability for LGBTQ+ communities as it implies legal support for an intolerance of identity expression. Any individual targeted by this EO will be forced to examine how they will adapt to fit these new guidelines rather than maintain the principal focus of their employment. Reducing support for individuals and their identities also negatively impacts both the individual’s and the corporation’s economic growth. As determined by researchers at the UCLA School of Law, micro-level implementations of discrimination within the workplace contribute to “lost labor time, lost productivity, underinvestment in human capital, and the inefficient allocation of human resources” [13]. The study additionally supports a macro-level analysis determining that there is a positive correlation between GDP per capita and rights afforded to LGBTQ populations [14]. EO 14168 is systematically disruptive as it limits efforts for economic advancement and enforces a cycle of self-advocacy for members of the LGBTQ+ community.
The final EO that directly attacked DEI institutions was EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This EO is especially important as it concerns the Federal Government’s efforts to implement anti-DEI measures within the private sector. This EO expands the administration’s stated purpose for retracting DEI, stating that such programs “undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values […] in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system” [15]. EO 14173 also draws on the 6-3 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023), where the Supreme Court determined that the race-conscious admissions process at Harvard University is unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as it distinguishes between students applying to the university based on race [16]. This case was a landmark justification against DEI efforts as it certified the principle that DEI programs could be considered exclusionary by platforming certain groups over others.
With EO 14173, President Trump expands this termination to the private sector, mandating that organizations must comply with the new, anti-DEI policies. The EO draws on enforcement efforts similar to those in EO 14151 by empowering the Attorney General and relevant agencies to investigate nine potential civil complaints against relevant publicly traded corporations, large non-profits or associations, foundations, state and local bar and medical associations that have ‘illegal’ DEI practices [17]. Should these bad actors not comply, they face the possibility of federal lawsuits and other regulatory actions. While the administration did expand its reasoning for employing these measures, it continued in its (perhaps intentional) failure to determine what exactly would be considered DEI, resulting in tension between private corporations and the Federal government. In their efforts to holistically comply with the EO––and avoid federal prosecution––private corporations are likely to assume the guidelines universally to ensure proper commitment. Consistent with these efforts, it is clear that the change to DEI will have an immediate and disparaging effect within the workplace. As examined by Mel Wilson at the National Association of Social Workers, the hostile environments permitted by these policy changes prevent the proper inclusion of minority groups within the workplace, promoting integration as an afterthought, therefore enforcing the likelihood of increased social and economic disparities [18]. This emphasizes the faulty nature of the Trump administration’s application of these terms, demonstrating an effort to enforce a broad view of DEI as a restriction to equality [19].
The Trump Administration’s changes have been immediately contested both in the courts and through outright refusal to comply from the affected parties. In fact, there are numerous ongoing suits from different organizations and individuals impacted by the EOs. The 2025 case Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, exemplifies such efforts. Among one of the first groups to file a lawsuit, Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT) contested that their federal funding was wrongfully removed, under the change that EO 14151, 14168, and 14173 were unconstitutional [20]. CWIT determined that this action was unconstitutional as EO 14151’s failure to explicitly define the terms of DEI rendered the EO substantially overbroad, therefore violating the ‘overbreadth doctrine’ [21]. In Broadrick v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court defines a statute as overly broad when it permits a substantial sweep of free speech outside its legitimate scope [22]. The doctrine permits litigators to facially challenge a law on behalf of a third party whose First Amendment rights may be chilled, applicable to the CWIT case, which declared that the EOs prohibited the ability to hold or express a differing viewpoint [23]. While interpretations of DEI vary, they are not outside the scope of federal anti-discrimination law and are considered protected speech [24]. Furthermore, CWIT argued that the action by the federal government violated the 5th amendment, which ensures due process and prohibits vague laws, as it did not provide sufficient information in order for CWIT to act accordingly within the framework of the EOs [25]. The actions by the Federal government against CWIT are not unique – many others are facing similar struggles as CWIT. The 2025 Doe vs. U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Central Intelligence Agency demonstrates a synonymous dispute by federal officers affected by EO 14151. The lawsuit supports two federal officers placed on administrative leave for holding positions related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) as a result of EO 14151, arguing that this course of action is a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments [26]. In addition, the officers were placed on leave without notice and due process, which are both required by the Administrative Procedure Act and Administrative Leave Act [27]. These lawsuits are the first of many future cases to be brought forth to protect organizations and individuals affected by the wide-sweeping efforts of Trump’s EOs. Apart from legal challenges from organizations, individual corporations have also explicitly rejected the guidelines of the new EOs. For example, organizations like Costco have stated their intent to maintain their pre-existing DEI programs as they credit a large part of their economic success to their DEI-friendly business model that garners positive customer sentiments and a more hospitable work environment [28]. While the programs themselves may be required to adapt within this framework, Costco’s strategy presents the possibility of persistence for these programs under the Trump administration.
The core principles of DEI initiatives, grounded in the explicit pursuit of equity, have been warped to fit a political narrative portraying them as harmful to society. The vague definitions that the Trump Administration uses to define DEI and anti-DEI enforcement serve to confuse both corporations and the public. Thus, President Trump’s executive orders have destabilized the workplace, prompting marginalized communities to cope with how this change will harmfully affect economic equality and expose levels of further discrimination, without the previously held legal support systems. While organizational and legal efforts to contest these actions provide powerful insight into the constitutionality of these EOs, regardless of the attempts made to challenge these orders, there is no doubt that they will reshape the landscape of inclusion for years to come.
[1] Civil Rights Act, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
[2] see [1].
[3] Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle et al., Diversity wins: How inclusion matters McKinsey & Company (2020), https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters (last visited Nov 5, 2025).
[4] Exec. Order No. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009 (Jan. 20, 2021).
[5] Exec. Order No. 14091, Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, 88 Fed. Reg. 10825 (Feb. 16, 2023).
[6] Exec. Order No. 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025).
[7] see [6].
[8] see [5].
[9] Trump’s executive orders on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, explained, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (2025), https://civilrights.org/resource/anti-deia-eos/ (last visited Nov 5, 2025).
[10] Exec. Order No. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (Jan. 20, 2025).
[11] see [10].
[12] see [10].
[13] M.V. Lee Badgett et al., The Relationship between LGBT Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies (Nov. 2014), https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-inclusion-economic-dev/.
[14] see [13].
[15] Exec. Order No. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 2IL AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Feb. 12, 2025), https://civilrights.org/resource/anti-deia-eos/.
[16] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College,
600 US _ (2023).
[17] see [15].
[18] Mel Wilson, Trump’s DEI Executive Order: Only the Beginning of Attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS (NASW), https://www.socialworkers.org/Advocacy/Social-Justice/Social-Justice-Briefs/Trumps-DEI-Executive-Order-Only-the-Beginning-of-Attacks-on-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion (last visited Nov. 5, 2025).
[19] see [18].
[20] Chicago Women in Trades v. President Donald J. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-03259, D.D.C (2020).
[21] see [20].
[22] Broadrick vs. Oklahoma, 413 US 601_(1973)
[23] ArtIII.S2.C1.6.6.6 Overbreadth Doctrine, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan
[24] see [20].
[25] see [20].
[26] Jane Does 1-6 vs. U.S. Off. of the Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence, No. 25-300 (2025)
[27] see [27].
[28] Nancy Marshall-Genzer, Costco doubles down on Dei - and benefits, MARKETPLACE (May 2022, 2025), https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/22/costco-doubles-down-on-dei-and-benefits
Comments