New study reveals 'staggering' scope of how much DEI was infused into government under Biden
The new study, conducted by the Functional Government Initiative and the Center for Renewing America, identified 460 programs across 24 government agencies in the Biden administration that diverted resources to DEI initiatives.
At least $1 trillion of taxpayer money was infused with DEI principles, the study states.
The study lays out DEI infusion across several federal agencies, including the Defense Department's plan to "integrate environmental/economic justice tools" into training, FEMA's need to "instill equity as a foundation of emergency management," and the Labor Department's push to "embed equity in a sustainable manner that recognizes the multiple and overlapping identities held by workers."
On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13985, which was aimed at carrying out the stated goal of "advancing equity and racial justice through the federal government."
"This order mandated a whole of government approach to injecting DEI philosophy into the federal budget," the study says. "In alignment with this directive, the Biden administration apparently spent trillions in DEI-related initiatives in a manner and at a speed that has shrouded public awareness of the financial burden."'DISTURBING': WHISTLEBLOWER FUMES AT BIDEN-ERA AGENCY PROMOTING DEI PROGRAM AS DEPARTMENT'S 'MISSION'
The report outlines how, over the next four years, the amount spent on DEI efforts was "staggering."
"The cumulative budget of these programs exceeds $1.1 trillion," the report says. "However, this figure does not encompass all DEI-related expenditures, nor does it include every program across these agencies. The findings reveal a substantial increase in DEI spending, largely attributable to policy directives under the Biden administration."
"Of the programs identified, 10 are exclusively dedicated to DEI and could be considered for quick elimination; 144 allocate significant resources to DEI initiatives and should be reviewed if those are to be ended; and 306 programs incorporate DEI to varying degrees, though the extent of their DEI focus is indeterminate based on the available documentation."
The report goes department by department and calculates the DEI programs and provides recommendations on how they should be addressed.
"DEI is deeply rooted throughout all aspects of the federal government, and it needs to be eliminated completely," Center for Renewing America senior adviser Wade Miller told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Thankfully, the Trump administration has already embarked on a vitally necessary complete audit of each and every government program. We offer, in this report, what we hope are additional resources and tools that the new administration and Congress can use to identify, destroy and permanently remove DEI from the federal government."
FGI spokesman Roderick Law explained to Fox News Digital that the dual study "could both expedite the elimination of DEI from the executive branch and show just how quickly pernicious ideologies can spread inside the government."
"The nature of DEI is both divisive and anti-American," Law added, "so why force it onto the military or the Commerce Department or the EPA? After President Biden lavishly funded and pushed these controversial principles into every possible area of government, our hope is that raising these questions and offering Congress and responsible executive branch officials tools and suggestions can keep it from happening again."
The Trump administration has made it a top priority to rid DEI from the federal bureaucracy and the president has signed multiple executive orders aimed at addressing what it argues is a practice that does more harm than good by ignoring meritocracy.
Fox News Digital reached out to Biden's office for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
11 minutes ago
- UPI
4 Costa Ricans sanctioned in U.S. drive targeting drug trafficking
Aug. 19 (UPI) -- The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned four Costa Rican men and two entities for allegedly trafficking narcotics to the United States and money laundering as part of an effort to disrupt criminal cartels that have turned the Central American nation into a global cocaine hub. The sanctions, issued Monday against Celso Manuel Gamboa Sanchez, Edwin Danney Lopez Vega, Alejandro Antonio James Wilson and Alejandro Arias Monge under a Biden-era executive order, followed a joint investigation involving the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States and Costa Rica and Costa Rican authorities. Gamboa and Lopez are in prison awaiting extradition to the United States after Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves Robles enacted a constitutional amendment in May permitting the extradition of Costa Rican nationals accused of drug trafficking and terrorism. Authorities allege former vice-minister for public security Gamboa was a major drug trafficker in Costa Rica, facilitating the shipment of cocaine worth tens of millions of dollars from Colombia through Costa Rica to the United States and Europe. Gamboa allegedly abused his position to gather intel about ongoing counternarcotics investigations and sold it to those being targeted. Lopez was allegedly an associate of Gamboa who helped him launder drug money and was the only known source of supply for Arias, Costa Rica's most wanted fugitive. Aria is accused of drug trafficking, robberies, and homicides throughout the country's eastern Limon province, with a $500,000 State Department bounty for information leading to his arrest or conviction. Gamboa and Lopez face 10 years to life imprisonment in a federal jail if convicted. The Treasury alleges James was engaged in drug trafficking and, working with Gamboa, paid off corrupt police and port officials in order to smuggle Colombian cocaine to the United States and Europe via Costa Rica's Moin container terminal. Also sanctioned were a front company owned by Gamboa and Limon Black Star Football Club, allegedly used by Gamboa to launder money. Treasury said that as a key cocaine transshipment hub, Costa Rica had become an "increasingly significant waypoint" for criminal groups trafficking cocaine into the United States, where cocaine was responsible for 22,000 overdose deaths in the 12 months to October. "Drug cartels are poisoning Americans and making our communities more dangerous by trafficking cocaine, often laced with fentanyl, into the United States," said Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence John K. Hurley. "The sanctions target key drug smugglers involved in transporting drugs into the United States. Treasury, in close coordination with U.S. law enforcement and our Costa Rican partners, will continue to use all available tools to disrupt narcotrafficking organizations that threaten the safety of Americans." Costa Rica was seeing rising rates of organized crime-fueled violence resulting from gangs vying for control of drug trafficking routes and turf, with 2024 was the second-most violent year on record, Treasury said, with 2025 on track for similarly grim statistics. Much of the violence is centered on the eastern Limon region, which recorded the highest homicide rate in the country in 2024, rising dramatically in the six years since the Moin port opened, as criminal groups battle for control of the terminal in order to smuggle cocaine out of the country aboard departing container ships. The sanctions freeze all wholly or majority-owned U.S. property and interests in property of individuals and businesses, or those held or controlled by Americans, which must be reported to the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Financial institutions or any person are also banned from granting any financial assistance or providing or receiving funds, goods, or services from the four men or the two entities, while foreign financial institutions that process any significant transaction on their behalf run the risk of OFAC secondary sanctions.
Engadget
12 minutes ago
- Engadget
The UK will no longer require Apple to create backdoor access to users' data
UK officials will no longer compel Apple to create backdoor access to its users' data, according to US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. She wrote on X that she, President Trump and Vice President Vance worked closely with their "partners in the UK" over the past months. "As a result," she continued, "the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties." As The New York Times notes, the UK government issued the secret order earlier this year after amending the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016. The law gives the UK government the right to compel companies to turn over data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Reports about the mandate started to come out in February, however, and Apple pretty much confirmed it when it disabled iCloud's Advanced Data Protection feature in the UK. ADP gives users the power to to add optional end-to-end encryption to a variety of iCloud data, which means the information can't be accessed by authorities unless they have the user's device in their hands. "As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will," Apple said at the time. A bipartisan group of US lawmakers asked Gabbard to take measures to prevent what they called "a foreign cyberattack waged through political means" after the information about the mandate went public. Meanwhile, Apple filed a complained with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which "investigates complaints about the alleged conduct of public bodies in relation to members of the public," to get the order reversed. The company has yet to issue an official statement about the reversal of the UK mandate.
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
For economists and CEOs, Trump is the micromanager from hell
The president — who I would ordinarily assume is too busy to micromanage our lives — has started to reach into companies and reprimand workers who, in his view, aren't doing a good job. Consider Jan Hatzius, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, who isn't a particularly famous person, except to the CNBC set. In 2009, Arizona State University awarded Hatzius Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Hatzius may not be People's 'Sexiest Man Alive.' But still. For an economist, accuracy is sexy enough. Advertisement At least it was until last week, when President Trump asked Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon to fire Hatzius because he predicted that tariffs would increasingly strain the economy. 'Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury's coffers,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. Of course, the president is entitled to his opinion, but he went further than that. 'I think that David should go out and get himself a new Economist,' Trump noted, 'or, maybe, he ought to just focus on being a DJ, and not bother running a major Financial Institution.' Advertisement Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York on July 16. Seth Wenig/Associated Press Hatzius may turn out to be wrong about the effect of tariffs, but with a doctorate in economics from Oxford and 30 years working as an economist, he's unquestionably an expert. If I was looking to predict where the economy was going, I'd have to choose the two-time 'Most Accurate Economist' over the president. In the days after the president's post, the wholesale cost of goods 'You can fire the BLS Commissioner [ 'People are still going to experience what they're experiencing at the grocery store. They're still going to experience what they are experiencing in the job market,' she says. 'The economy is a very, very difficult thing to obfuscate. You know, who are you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying bank account?' The president has argued that the tariffs will be absorbed by other countries, but Gimbel (along with most economists) disagrees. 'There is a lot of evidence about this, and the evidence is that the US consumer pays the tariffs.... The people who are gonna get hurt by this are the people who are trying to buy bananas for their 1-year-olds at the grocery store.' Advertisement But the president's singling out of individuals doing their jobs is part of a disturbing pattern. The call for Solomon to axe Hatzius — or perhaps to step aside himself — came just a few days after Trump demanded the firing of Lip-Bu Tan, the CEO of Intel. 'The CEO of Intel is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,' the president noted on Truth Social. 'There is no other solution to this problem.' Intel's shares immediately dipped, and Tan went to the White House to try to convince the president he deserved his job. Apparently, things went well, because Trump then wrote on social media that Tan's 'success and rise is an amazing story,' and the US government is now discussing taking a stake in the company. (Though being a 'success' seems to have little connection to whether or not Tan has ties to China that might serve as conflicts, which was Trump's original allegation.) Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 11. Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg Ordinarily, whether Tan is well-suited to run Intel would seem to have little to do with the president. Tan's background is in physics and nuclear engineering (he has a master's degree from MIT), and he joined Intel earlier this year to help the one-time king of computer chips reverse its multi-year slide. But why trust tech experts to run tech companies? Why trust economists to make economic predictions? Of course, part of what we're seeing is a broader devaluing of expertise and data. But we're also starting to inhabit a world in which the president is always watching. And what he says does more than move markets — it affects livelihoods. Advertisement If a restaurateur talks publicly about the effect of surging vegetable prices in his restaurant, beware of blowback. (On Aug. 14, the government released data Increasingly, corporate leaders — even those lower than the C-suite — may start to wonder: Should they say what they think? Write what they believe? How worried should companies be about those who don't toe the party line? In Bloomberg , Mihir Sharma Sharma might be overreacting, or not. But fear is settling in. And no one knows where the line is. That can't be good for business, largely because it silences independent thinkers, those with contrarian views, and anyone who is perceived as somehow out of the mainstream. In our new reality, expertise doesn't protect you. Obscurity doesn't protect you. Data doesn't protect you. Telling the truth — perhaps even just being who you are — may be a problem. And if the president isn't a fan of yours, beware. He may just let you know. Follow Kara Miller
