Skip to main content

Trump’s Executive Orders Rolling Back DEI and Accessibility Efforts, Explained


The Trump administration’s three executive orders targeting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives take a “shock and awe” approach that upends longstanding, bipartisan federal policy meant to open doors that had been unfairly closed. In his first few days, President Donald Trump is undertaking a deliberate effort to obfuscate and weaponize civil rights laws that address discrimination and ensure everyone has a fair chance to compete, whether it’s for a job, a promotion, or an education.

With these actions, the administration is not only undoing decades of federal anti-discrimination policy, spanning Democratic and Republican presidential administrations alike, but also marshalling federal enforcement agencies to bully both private and government entities into abandoning legal efforts to promote equity and remedy systemic discrimination. Trump’s executive orders undermine obligations dating back to the Johnson administration that firms doing business with the U.S. government and receiving billions in public dollars are held to the highest standards in remedying and preventing bias.

How Do These Orders Dismantle Decades of Federal Anti-Discrimination Policy?

For decades, federal policies have supported efforts to promote equal opportunity, enforced by administrations from both parties. These policies grew out of federal anti-discrimination laws passed during the 1960s civil rights struggle and have been expanded to guarantee that opportunity was not denied — as it had been for too long — because of one’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or other legally protected characteristics.

Trump’s executive orders represent a major departure from these policies, particularly in the federal contracting space. One order rescinds Executive Order 11246, a cornerstone of equal opportunity policy for federal contractors that has been in place since 1965 under the Johnson administration, without offering any replacement framework. This abrupt shift abandons a measure that has helped dismantle entrenched race and sex segregation in high-paying industries historically closed to women and Black and Brown workers. It also leaves contractors scrambling to navigate a complex regulatory environment, including federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII and other laws mandating federal contractors take affirmative action with respect to veterans and disabled workers — all of which remain in place.

How Will These Orders Target DEIA in the Workplace?

More broadly, the orders seek to intimidate all employers — ranging from private organizations and federal contractors and grantees to state and local entities — into abandoning DEIA initiatives, using vague and threatening language to create fear of enforcement actions. The strategy is clear: Bully everyone into dropping programs that ensure equitable workplaces by falsely equating diversity efforts with discrimination.

Yet, in employment for example, properly designed DEIA programs are not only legal under federal and state civil rights laws and longstanding legal precedents; they are also necessary to ensure compliance with those laws. Programs labeled as DEIA encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and ensure opportunities aren’t limited based on race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many of these initiatives are not focused on selecting specific candidates for hire — they aim to create fairer processes. For instance, recruiting at underrepresented institutions or ensuring fairness in promotion criteria helps address systemic inequities without disadvantaging any individual.

These programs are not discriminatory; they are essential to creating environments where everyone has a chance to succeed and addressing persistent barriers for individuals to advance in their careers. Employers must take a stand against this political intimidation and remain committed to opening doors to all candidates, especially those facing unfair headwinds. Legal advocacy groups and state attorneys general have urged compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws while advancing equity through measures that are neutral to race and other protected characteristics. Abandoning these programs risks perpetuating inequality, alienating diverse talent, and violating equal employment laws. Simply put, the federal government should not be intimidating and coercing employers into abandoning their commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace.

What About in Schools and Higher Education Institutions?

The executive orders also target DEIA and necessary practices in higher education institutions and schools. These actions mischaracterize lawful equity programs as discriminatory, aiming to chill efforts to promote equal access in education.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard left colleges and universities with several pathways to advance educational equity. The decision had no bearing on K-12 education, where schools must continue to identify and address barriers to equitable learning environments.

At a minimum, schools are required to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that ensure educational opportunities are provided on an equal basis. This means reviewing policies and practices to ensure they don’t unnecessarily limit opportunities based on race or other protected characteristics. Schools must also work to foster a climate where all students can access and thrive in their educational pursuits. Now, more than ever, educational institutions must resist intimidation and reaffirm their commitment to identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity.

What Happens Next?

Programs labeled as DEIA encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and schools. The executive orders attempt to conflate these lawful efforts with discrimination, weaponizing enforcement to bully institutions into abandoning critical programs and taking steps to try to eliminate protections against discrimination by government contractors. However, no court has declared DEIA efforts inherently illegal, and President Trump cannot override decades of legal precedent.

Companies, schools, and institutions must resist the fear and confusion these executive orders are designed to create. Now is the time to double down on our commitment to equal opportunity, ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has a fair chance to thrive. The ACLU continues to stand firm against these actions. DEIA expands opportunity in our nation by improving education, helping businesses grow, and giving all communities a chance to thrive and succeed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...