
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders
A major change in U.S. policy is forcing many organizations to rethink their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In January this year, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders that formally reversed federal DEI mandates. These orders directed agencies to dismantle internal DEI offices, eliminate DEI training programs, and withdraw equity-focused funding, calling such efforts 'discriminatory' and 'ideologically driven.'
For over a decade, DEI has influenced the way teams are built, people are supported, and communities are included in decision-making. It drove innovation, improved team performance, and helped people from overlooked backgrounds feel seen, heard, and included.
Trump's new orders push back against DEI, replacing it with 'merit-based' hiring, raising concern about what's lost in the process. The shift left many teams unsure of how to move forward, especially those who've built their culture around inclusion. Organizations are reassessing policies, directing legal and cultural shifts, and working to preserve inclusive values even as federal priorities move in a different direction.
Trump's move to dismantle DEI efforts began with two executive orders signed within days of taking office, setting off immediate ripple effects across federal agencies and beyond. These orders marked an aggressive reversal of long-standing federal policies , affecting not just government operations but also private contractors who rely on government partnerships.
Executive Order 14151, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," directed the termination of what it calls "discriminatory programs" going by the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The order instructed agencies to shut down DEI offices, cancel equity-centered grants and contracts, and eliminate DEI performance requirements for employees, contractors, and grantees. Federal agencies were given broad mandates to dismantle these programs "to the maximum extent allowed by law."
Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," took a different approach by revoking several prior orders focused on equal employment opportunity and workplace diversity. This order directed agency heads to submit reports by May 20, 2025, identifying "the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners" in their sectors and outlining specific steps to deter DEI programs that might constitute illegal discrimination.
A third order, Executive Order 14281, signed in April, aimed to "eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible." This targets a legal theory that holds employers liable for policies that disproportionately affect protected groups, even without intentional discrimination.
The administration frames these changes as a return to "merit-based" hiring, arguing that identity-focused practices are discriminatory and unlawful. However, the orders don't define "illegal DEI," creating uncertainty for organizations trying to understand what's permissible. This ambiguity has prompted many companies to scale back or completely eliminate their DEI programs, even as legal challenges to the orders work their way through the courts.
The effects of Trump's executive orders are moving beyond policy changes into measurable workplace outcomes. A July 2025 survey from resume.org , of 965 U.S. companies with active DEI programs before November 2024, reveals the tangible consequences organizations are facing.
The numbers show immediate shifts in hiring and retention patterns. One in five companies has eliminated DEI initiatives entirely, with 74% citing the changed political climate as their primary reason. Among companies that cut programs, 57% report hiring fewer people from underrepresented groups. The decline is particularly pronounced for women of color (37% decrease), LGBTQIA+ candidates (33% decrease), and men of color (33% decrease). By comparison, only 12% reported decreased hiring of white men.
The workplace culture impacts are equally significant. Nearly half of the companies that reduced DEI efforts report declining employee morale, while 36% struggle with retention of diverse talent. Leadership representation has also shifted, with 30% noting fewer people of color in leadership roles and 24% reporting fewer women in leadership positions.
Perhaps most concerning, 18% of organizations report increased incidents of workplace discrimination or bias following DEI program cuts. 25% acknowledge reputational damage, suggesting the changes extend beyond internal operations to external perceptions.
The survey reveals divided opinions among business leaders about these changes. Some view DEI elimination as removing divisive elements, with one respondent noting it "restored a sense of fairness." Others express disappointment, with leaders describing the loss of "safe spaces" and being worried about being "worse off as a company."
These patterns suggest the executive orders have created a ripple effect that extends across public agencies, private companies, nonprofits, and educational institutions. The changes are reshaping not just policies but fundamental aspects of how organizations attract talent, build leadership, and maintain workplace culture.
The executive orders affect government agencies, federal contractors, private companies with federal funding, nonprofits, and educational institutions tied to federal grants. Even organizations without direct contracts are experiencing ripple effects as partners and industry peers adjust policies to comply.
Organizations that eliminated DEI programs report widespread morale issues. Employees who valued these initiatives feel abandoned, making them more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere. Recruitment has become more challenging, particularly with younger workers, while unclear communication about policy changes has damaged internal trust.
Companies that cut DEI programs are losing employees , especially women, black professionals, and other underrepresented groups who prioritize inclusive workplaces. Hiring for these groups has slowed, and fewer younger candidates are applying. Internally, trust has weakened, opportunities feel less equitable, and problem-solving has suffered due to reduced diverse perspectives.
Without DEI initiatives, companies struggle to attract diverse talent. Skilled candidates who value inclusion often bypass employers that don't demonstrate clear commitment to equity, intensifying competition for talent in an already tight market.
Stepping away from DEI can damage both public perception and internal culture. Externally, organizations may appear out of touch, hurting brand image and stakeholder trust. Internally, the absence of DEI structures can allow bias or discrimination to go unchecked, weakening morale and creating unsafe work environments.
Some companies, like Meta and McDonald's, have scaled back DEI programs amid political pressures. Others, including Costco, Apple, and Microsoft, maintain their inclusion commitments. Cutting DEI risks backlash from progressive employees, investors, and customers, while maintaining programs may provoke conservative opposition. Organizations must navigate these competing pressures, particularly as black consumers' buying power is projected to nearly double by 2030, underscoring the business case for inclusion.
The Trump administration's executive orders have created significant uncertainty for organizations across all sectors. Federal agencies are intensifying enforcement of civil rights laws, potentially creating legal risks for companies that maintain DEI programs. This has left businesses facing a difficult decision. Some are dismantling programs to avoid potential scrutiny, while others are maintaining their diversity commitments despite the political shift.
Organizations don't have to navigate these changes blindly. Clear, honest communication with employees and stakeholders helps maintain trust during this transition period. Companies should continue focusing on essential practices like fair hiring, equitable career development, and respectful workplace policies, regardless of what these efforts are called. Legal reviews of existing programs can help identify potential compliance issues while preserving inclusive practices.
The key is balancing political realities with organizational values and goals. Companies that stay committed to inclusion, even if they rebrand their approach, can continue attracting diverse talent and driving innovation. Those that abandon these efforts entirely risk losing valuable employees and damaging relationships with customers and stakeholders who value diversity.
Success requires both flexibility and strategic thinking. Organizations that communicate transparently, review their policies carefully, and maintain inclusive cultures will be better positioned to weather this period of change while keeping the benefits of diverse, engaged teams.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Inflation Slowed In July—Boosting Hopes For Interest Rate Cut
Consumer prices rose slower than expected last month as President Donald Trump's tariffs gripped markets, according to federal data released Tuesday, as hope remains for a possible interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve. The inflation report is the first since President Donald Trump fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief. Getty Images Consumer prices rose 2.7% last month from July 2024 and increased 0.2% between June and July, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Tuesday, lower than economist estimates of 2.8%, according to FactSet. Core consumer prices, an economic reading cutting out the more volatile food and energy categories, rose 3.1% year-over-year and 0.3% from June to July, above projections for a 3% and 0.2% increase, respectively. This is a developing story .


Vox
a few seconds ago
- Vox
Stop romanticizing the 1990s. The data shows today is better.
is a senior editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate teams and the Unexplainable and The Gray Area podcasts. He is also the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section and writes the Good News newsletter. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk. Let me introduce you to four of the most dangerous words in politics: 'the good old days.' Humans have a demonstrated tendency to remember the past as better than it actually was. It's called 'nostalgia bias,' and it can lead to us unfairly comparing the conditions of the present to some better imagined past. Memory, as the political scientist Lee Drutman wrote in a smart piece last year, is like a record store: It stocks both the hits and stinkers of the present, but only the hits of the past. 'The old days were full of stinkers, too,' he wrote. 'It's just nobody replays the stinkers.' Nostalgia bias has become a bigger and bigger part of our politics, thanks in part to President Donald Trump's largely successful ability to leverage a collective longing for a supposedly better past. (After all, it's called 'Make America Great Again,' not 'Make America Great.') But it's hardly the domain of one party: A 2023 survey from Pew found that nearly six in 10 respondents said that life in the US 50 years ago was better for people like them than it is today. Fifty years ago was the 1970s, and it doesn't take too much historical research to see how that decade doesn't match up to our happy memories. (One word: disco.) But what about a more recent, seemingly actually better decade? One that's suddenly surfing a wave of pop-culture nostalgia? A decade like…the 1990s? Related The surprising reason fewer people are dying from extreme weather One 2024 survey from CivicScience found that the 1990s were the single decade respondents felt most nostalgic for (while the most recent decade, the 2010s, finished dead last). Nor, to my surprise, is this just the product of aging Gen X-ers pining for their flannel-clad youth — another survey found that over a third of Gen Z-ers were nostalgic for the 1990s, despite the fact most of them had not yet been born then, while 61 percent of millennials felt the same way. But look closely, and you'll realize that our memories of the 1990s are fatally blurred by nostalgia. Here are four reasons why the 1990s weren't as good as the present day. 1) A far more violent country I've written before about how Americans have this stubborn habit of believing the crime is getting worse even when it's actually getting better. But holy cow, was America violent and murderous in the 1990s! 2) A much poorer world At the start of the 1990s, nearly 40 percent of the entire world was in a state of extreme poverty, living on $2.15 or less a day. What that meant in reality was that for almost half the world, life was lived on the edge of grinding subsistence, much as it had been for centuries, with seemingly little chance for change. In China, for instance, some two-thirds of the population was in extreme poverty. The idea that the world's largest nation would ever become rich would have been laughable. Today, as I've written before, that picture has utterly changed. Just 8.5 percent of the world's now much larger population lives in extreme poverty, which translates to over a billion people escaping near-total destitution. While you might want to go back in time to the 1990s, I can almost guarantee that none of them would. But it's not just the world. The 1990s may be remembered by some as one long economic boom in the US, but real GDP produced per person has increased by 40 percent since the end of the '90s, while real median income has increased by nearly 15 percent. Nostalgia doesn't take into account compound growth. 3) A nearly unchecked HIV pandemic There are countless ways in which health statistics globally have improved since the 1990s — the child mortality rate alone has fallen by 61 percent since 1990 — but the most striking one to me is HIV. At the dawn of the 1990s the HIV epidemic looked unbeatable: The US lost 31,196 people to AIDS in 1990, and by 1995 it was the leading killer of Americans aged 25-44. Global AIDS deaths were racing toward the 2-million-a-year mark, and even when the first truly effective multi-drug cocktail debuted in 1996, it reached only a tiny share of patients globally. Today the picture has flipped. About 30.7 million people — 77 percent of everyone with HIV — receive treatment, and global AIDS deaths have fallen to around 630,000. In 2022 there were fewer than 20,000 AIDS deaths in the US, and many cities are realistically aiming to zero out cases and deaths in the near future. There's even real hope for an effective vaccine. 4) A less tolerant, less educated population Though it might not seem like it in our highly polarized present moment, a number of important social attitudes have flipped since the Clinton years. When Gallup first asked in 1996, just 27 percent of Americans backed legal same-sex marriage; support now sits at 71 percent, and it has been legal throughout the country since 2015. In 1991, fewer than half of adults approved of Black-white marriages, yet by 2021 that share had rocketed to 94 percent. Together these shifts mark a dramatic expansion of everyday acceptance for LGBTQ people, interracial families, and other forms of diversity. As decades go, the 1990s did have a lot going for them, though as someone who was in their late teens and early 20s during much of them — precisely the ages we're most nostalgic for — you can't take my word for it. And our current moment has no shortage of problems, including some that 30 years ago we would have considered dead and buried. But don't let your inaccurate memories of the past distort your ability to see how far we've come. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reeves highlights NI investment on Belfast visit
On a visit to Belfast, Chancellor Rachel Reeves emphasised significant investment in Northern Ireland as part of the government's commitment to balanced economic growth across the UK. . Solve the daily Crossword