The Not-So-Secret Society Whose Members Run State
The group's roster includes Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau, top officials in bureaus such as consular affairs, and even an acting undersecretary or two. The fellows include current and former members of the foreign service, as well as other international affairs specialists. And while the Fellowship describes itself as nonpartisan, its right-of-center views are obvious: It emphasizes goals such as border security; opposes typical diversity, equity and inclusion practices; and advocates for the careful use of U.S. resources abroad.
I have had a number of conversations with founders of the Fellowship, and they clearly cast it as a refuge for a group they believe is marginalized in U.S. diplomacy.
'It is a network of people who are not progressive and who have felt as though they've not had a forum like so many others in the State Department over the decades,' said Matthew Boyse, a Fellowship founder and a former foreign service officer.
But many career U.S. diplomats are suspicious of the organization.
They warned me that it could politicize a foreign service that is supposed to be nonpartisan and undermine policymaking by promoting MAGA-infused ideology over facts. Some worry that joining the Fellowship is an unofficial requirement to get ahead in their careers under President Donald Trump, and that its anti-DEI message will hurt women and minorities in a State Department historically dominated by white men. Some also question the qualifications of Fellowship members who have gotten plum assignments.
The Fellowship 'seems like a thinly veiled MAGA loyalist roster — like, sign up and you'll be 'one of the good ones,'' said one State Department staffer, who, like others, I granted anonymity because they didn't want to get fired for talking to a reporter.
I'll be frank: I wasn't that interested in writing about the Fellowship when I first heard about it months ago. My initial view was: So what if a bunch of right-leaning diplomats link up?
It's hardly the only group to cater to national security types across the political spectrum — from the left-leaning Truman National Security Project to the right-leaning Hudson Institute. Freedom of association is still a thing, even for diplomats who, regardless of their personal views, are expected to implement the policies of whoever is president.
But I soon concluded that the Fellowship is distinct in its heavy focus on reforming the State Department itself. It is intent on getting people with very specific views into the department, an approach that could affect U.S. foreign policy decades into the future.
And I simply couldn't ignore the Fellowship after May 2.
That was the day the State Department held its annual Foreign Affairs Day celebration. The event came amid anxiety at State over a reorganization plan that threatens many jobs and Trump's destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Several key speakers were Ben Franklin Fellows. And things got … awkward.
The speakers included Lew Olowski, State's acting human resources chief, who touted the Fellowship in his remarks. Olowski's appointment has been derided by diplomats who argue he is too junior and not qualified for the job.
Then there was Phillip Linderman. He's a retired diplomat and another Fellowship founder, and he was given a major prize, the Foreign Service Directors General's Cup. At one point, Linderman told the audience he was accepting the award on behalf of 'overlooked' foreign service officers who had 'been intentionally passed over for promotion and assignments abroad' due to 'extreme' DEI policies.
Some audience members walked out at this point. Many watching online reached out to me, aghast at Linderman's comments, which they said implied women and minorities who received promotions hadn't deserved them.
Also speaking was Landau, the deputy secretary of State. He repeatedly raised the concept of respect and said he was disappointed by the earlier walkouts. But his remarks drew heckles from some audience members who asked why the Trump administration was disrespecting U.S.-allied nations and employees of USAID. Such interruptions were a shocking breach of decorum for an audience of diplomats.
In subsequent interviews with the Fellowship's founders — Boyse, Linderman and Simon Hankinson — I've tried to figure out what drives the Fellowship and how much power it truly wields.
The answer is, like so much of the world right now, murky.
The Fellowship's founders insist they are not trying to inject partisan politics into U.S. diplomacy and that the last thing they want is to create a right-wing 'deep state' inside the government.
'We very much believe in the constitutional order, which is that the federal bureaucracy works for the president, and it doesn't have a policy interest, a legitimate policy interest, outside of what the president wants to do,' Linderman told me.
But the Fellowship's leaders argue conservative views are barely represented within the foreign service, which undermines policy debates. So while suspicious diplomats worry the Fellowship will skew policy debates toward one ideology, the Fellowship's leaders say the debates are already unhealthily skewed toward another.
Both Hankinson and Linderman said they'd separately thought of setting up a network of conservative diplomats years ago, but Linderman did much of the early legwork that eventually led to the Fellowship. Boyse connected the two men.
At State, there have long been different kinds of employee associations. They include 'affinity groups' that link people of different faith, ethnic and other backgrounds, including military veterans. Many on the right saw such groups as vehicles for progressive ideas. The current Trump administration has effectively disbanded many such groups on grounds that they promote gender and racial ideology.
For a variety of often logistical reasons, Boyse, Hankinson and Linderman chose to create the Fellowship as an independent nonprofit outside the State Department. That choice also gives the group a bit more freedom than being under State's auspices.
Linderman told me he was especially motivated to create the Fellowship, which was up and running by last year, during the Joe Biden presidency.
That administration, he said, radicalized the State Department leftward, especially in its promotion of DEI policies and, in his view, a lax treatment of migration. (Linderman is affiliated with the Center for Immigration Studies, which wants to restrict immigration.)
When I pressed Linderman about his comments at the award ceremony, he pointed to the Fellowship's roster, which includes women and minorities. These fellows believe in the group's principles and resent being thought of as 'DEI hires,' he said. He and the other founders stress that they don't oppose diversity in general but that it's unfair for a person's immutable characteristics to be given more weight than another's accomplishments in, say, promotions.
Linderman also told me he was surprised to receive the award but was told — he wouldn't say by whom — that his work on the Fellowship affected his selection.
Despite diplomats' suspicions, I couldn't find proof that the Fellowship is outright directing State Department policy or personnel decisions — at least not as an organization.
U.S. diplomats in multiple time zones told me they'd not seen formal, written State communications that mentioned the group. A senior State official familiar with the situation also said he's not heard the group mentioned by top officials as a must-consult entity.
But these are early days, and the Fellowship is taking actions designed to seed long-term conservative influence in the diplomatic ranks. Even if creating a conservative 'deep state' is not a formal goal of the Fellowship's founders, a future Democratic president may find a foreign service that's far less amenable to their goals.
The State Department would not directly answer my questions about the Fellowship's role, including whether a person's affiliation with the group affects personnel decisions. But it sent me a statement that said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his team 'value the insights, ideas, and leadership provided by members of the Ben Franklin Fellowship. We're grateful for their service to our country.'
The Fellowship's founders said there have been one-on-one talks between top State officials and individuals in their group at various settings, but they described that as typical Washington networking. And fellows such as Landau and Olowski, for instance, are likely to have significant influence over hiring given their official positions at State.
Hankinson, who also spent years in the foreign service, said the overlap between the group's Fellows and the State staffing chart comes down to math. The pool of current and former U.S. diplomats known to have views that match Trump's is small.
'One of our primary goals is to serve as a network to connect career diplomats and other foreign policy professionals who share the same values — including openly advocating for the U.S. national interest in foreign affairs,' Hankinson said. He added that if a Democratic administration sought Fellowship members' suggestions for hires, they'd offer them ideas, too. 'I suspect that won't happen,' he chuckled.
I pointed out that Olowski is much less experienced than past diplomats who've overseen human resources at State. How is that a merit-based promotion?
But Hankinson noted that Olowski had the role on an acting basis and argued that he had a solid résumé. Hankinson also said many political appointees under other administrations were underqualified for their roles. The Fellowship's concerns about putting merit over DEI are centered more on the career foreign service, not political appointees. (Olowski did not respond to my request for comment; neither did Landau.)
The Fellowship has largely been funded out of its founders' pockets, but it is seeking grants and accepting donations, Hankinson said. One superficial but potentially tricky challenge it will face is differentiating itself from multiple other programs named after Franklin, who is considered America's first diplomat. (That's one reason the group uses 'Ben' instead of 'Benjamin' in its name.)
The organization has multiple levels of affiliation, including fellows, members and people who are on the mailing list. Becoming a fellow or a member involves vetting to ensure the applicant agrees with the basic principles of the group, Hankinson said.
At the moment, he added, 'we're seeing a lot of interest.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From Greenwashing to Greenhushing: The Rise of ‘Anti-ESG' ETFs
ETFs claiming to shun companies that prioritize environmental, social and governance principles are on the rise. But how different are these strategies from other funds? While the number of so-called 'anti-ESG' ETFs has risen steadily in recent years, with the most recent fund launching just last month, sometimes the difference between them and vehicles that selected financial products without regard to ESG practices is more in the marketing materials than the investment choices. '[Managers] were saying they were going to invest in companies that were not focused on ESG, or they were going to invest and not take into account ESG,' said Hal Lambert, founder of Point Bridge, which launched one of the first overtly conservative funds in 2017. 'But that's how a lot of people invest already.' Analyzing the burgeoning 'anti-woke' market is made even more difficult by the lack of clear standards to define ESG and diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, practices. Used as finance-industry shorthand for what some investors consider liberal ideologies, the terms' meanings vary based on the person or organization employing them. READ ALSO: Like Active Management? Odds of Outperformance Are Slim and Liquid Staking Crypto Isn't a Securities Issue, SEC Says ESG-y Does It The Point Bridge America First ETF (MAGA), which is classified as an anti-ESG fund by Morningstar, launched in 2017 to track companies with PACs supporting Republican candidates. Although the fund did better under President Joe Biden than during President Donald Trump's first term, Lambert said that it's doing 'extremely well' compared to an equally weighted S&P 500. 'I did this because people were out protesting companies. They were upset at Disney, Nike, Target,' he said. 'I'm looking at this going, 'You don't realize you own those stocks in your mutual funds and your 401(k) funds.'' The most recent addition to the landscape is the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF, launched last month by James Fishback, an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency, established earlier this year under President Trump. Fishback said the fund was meant to invest only in firms that don't take gender or race into account when hiring, responding to the anti-DEI backlash that swept through American industry at the start of the second Trump era. Other funds capitalizing on it include: The God Bless America ETF (YALL), launched in 2022, which attempts to avoid investing in companies that engage in DEI initiatives or that fund 'radical social movements,' per the fund's website. The Constrained Capital ESG Orphans ETF (ORFN), also launched in 2022, which tracks companies typically left out of ESG-focused portfolios. The American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF), launched in 2020, which tracks US companies with perceived conservative values. Some funds that label themselves anti-ESG, however, can't really keep the promises they make, Lambert says. Removing companies that prioritize DEI from a fund's holdings, for example, is easier today as more and more companies revoke their DEI policies. Other strategies tend to either ignore certain sectors at the expense of higher returns or track the S&P 500 while charging comparatively high fees. (MAGA's expense ratio is 0.72%.) Still, some of these funds continue to pique investor interest, with Strive's US Energy ETF (DRLL), which tracks the energy sector but is heavily weighted toward oil and natural gas, and the Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL), which invests in what it calls 'biblically aligned' large-caps, each having assets over $300 million. A-Woke, My Love! The retreat from ESG was illustrated last year when only 1% of shareholder resolutions supporting ESG practices across 70 of the largest asset managers received majority support, compared with almost a quarter in 2021. Critics get ESG wrong, however, when they assume it's a matter of 'woke investing' as opposed to due diligence, said Peter Krull, partner at Earth Equity Advisors. ESG investing isn't just about making an impact, but about whether a company's strategy is viable in the long term, he said. A coastal operation in Florida, for example, is susceptible to hurricanes in a way that a midwestern company isn't. Investors are still putting their money in sustainable companies without advertising it, he added, a practice known as 'greenhushing.' 'They understand the importance of actually moving beyond the fundamentals, beyond a P/E ratio, or a company's growth rate, or debt levels,' Krull said. 'It's looking to see what other risks aren't being addressed in fundamentals or traditional equity research that can give a leg up over somebody else.' Research suggests greenhushing may not be as effective as it seems, since some businesses weren't invested in sustainable causes in the first place. Rather, they've simply stopped claiming to be engaging in sustainable operations. Companies like Nestlé and Nike dropped their 'previously unsubstantiated' commitments to carbon neutrality, according to an analysis from the nonprofit NewClimate Institute. A lack of standardization also precludes any true clarity about what is pro- or anti-ESG. Ratings on the research site Sustainalytics, for example, are going to differ from those on MSCI or another platform. Krull said his firm is tasked with deciding how they're 'going to tell the story in a way that people will pick up the phone or send us an email and say, 'Hey, we want to work with you guys' … Just saying we do ESG doesn't honestly tell a damn thing.' In These Polarized Times Launching anti-ESG and anti-woke ETFs is simply the latest attempt by firms and asset managers to take advantage of an increasingly politically charged environment, said Maggie Kulyk, founder of Chicory Wealth, which focuses on socially responsible investing. 'If there are firms that dabbled in trying to offer some product that had ESG slapped on it, but weren't very serious about it to begin with and are now exiting — fine,' Kulyk said. 'You weren't really committed to the thing to begin with.' The labels have become more extreme, but the underlying holdings mostly stay the same, she said. 'You've got a fund that includes things like controversial weapons and civilian firearms and tobacco, for example, but [it] still has 82% of its holdings with at least a 30% female board representation,' Kulyk said. 'If you're really anti-woke, why don't you get those out of there?' Krull predicts that investments in overtly ideological funds will continue to ramp up as political polarization drives investor decision-making. He said his firm, which also focuses on socially responsible investing, saw its AUM go up faster during Trump's first term than it did during Obama's time in office because of people who felt politically powerless trying to make a difference through sustainable investing. The same thing happened this time around, he added: 'I wouldn't be surprised if you saw … a divergence of these two philosophies.' This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive exclusive news and analysis of the rapidly evolving ETF landscape, built for advisors and capital allocators, subscribe to our free ETF Upside newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
A U.S. senator from Colombia emerges as a Trump link for Latin America's conservatives
MIAMI — When Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno visits Colombia this week as part of a three-nation tour of Latin America, it will be something of a homecoming. The Ohio senator, who defeated an incumbent last year with the help of Donald Trump's endorsement and the highest political ad spending in U.S. Senate race history, was born in Bogota and has brothers who are heavyweights in politics and business there. Moreno has emerged as an interlocutor for conservatives in Latin America seeking to connect with the Trump administration. In an interview with the Associated Press ahead of the trip, he expressed deep concern about Colombia's direction under left-wing President Gustavo Petro and suggested that U.S. sanctions, higher tariffs or other retaliatory action might be needed to steer it straight. The recent criminal conviction of former President Alvaro Uribe, a conservative icon, was an attempt to 'silence' the man who saved Colombia from guerrilla violence, Moreno said. Meanwhile, record cocaine production has left the United States less secure — and Colombia vulnerable to being decertified by the White House for failing to cooperate in the war on drugs. 'The purpose of the trip is to understand all the dynamics before any decision is made,' said Moreno, who will meet with both Petro and Uribe, as well as business leaders and local officials. 'But there's nothing that's taken off the table at this point and there's nothing that's directly being contemplated.' Moreno, a luxury car dealer from Cleveland, defeated incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown last year and became Ohio's senior senator on practically his first day in office after his close friend JD Vance resigned the Senate to become vice president. In Congress, Moreno has mimicked Trump's rhetoric to attack top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer as a 'miserable old man out of a Dickens novel,' called on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and threatened to subpoena California officials over their response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. On Latin America, he's been similarly outspoken, slamming Petro on social media as a 'socialist dictator' and accusing Mexico of being on the path to becoming a 'narco state.' Such comments barely register in blue-collar Ohio, but they've garnered attention in Latin America. That despite the fact Moreno hasn't lived in the region for decades, speaks Spanish with a U.S. accent and doesn't sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'He's somebody to watch,' said Michael Shifter, the former president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. 'He's one of the most loyal Trump supporters in the senate and given his background in Latin America he could be influential on policy.' Moreno, 58, starts his first congressional delegation to Latin America on Monday for two days of meetings in Mexico City with officials including President Claudia Sheinbaum. He'll be accompanied by Terrance Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who is making his first overseas trip since being confirmed by the Senate last month to head the premier federal narcotics agency. Moreno, in the pre-trip interview, said that Sheinbaum has done more to combat the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. than her predecessor and mentor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who he described as a 'total disaster.' But he said more cooperation is needed, and he'd like to see Mexico allow the DEA to participate in judicial wiretaps like it has for decades in Colombia and allow it to bring back a plane used in bilateral investigations that López Obrador grounded. 'The corruption becomes so pervasive, that if it's left unchecked, it's kind of like treating cancer,' said Moreno. 'Mexico has to just come to the realization that it does not have the resources to completely wipe out the drug cartels. And it's only going to be by asking the U.S. for help that we can actually accomplish that.' From Mexico, Moreno heads to Panama, where he'll tour the Panama Canal with Trump's new ambassador to the country, Kevin Marino Cabrera. In March, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate struck a deal that would've handed control of two ports on either end of the U.S.-built canal to American investment firm BlackRock Inc. The deal was heralded by Trump, who had threatened to take back the canal to curb Chinese influence. However, the deal has since drawn scrutiny from antitrust authorities in Beijing and last month the seller said it was seeking to add a strategic partner from mainland China — reportedly state-owned shipping company Cosco — to the deal. 'Cosco you might as well say is the actual communist party,' said Moreno. 'There's no scenario in which Cosco can be part of the Panamanian ports.' On the final leg of the tour in Colombia, Moreno will be joined by another Colombian American senator: Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona. In contrast to Moreno, who was born into privilege and counts among his siblings a former ambassador to the U.S., Gallego and his three sisters were raised by an immigrant single mother on a secretary's paycheck. Despite their different upbringings, the two have made common cause in seeking to uphold the tradition of bilateral U.S. support for Colombia, for decades Washington's staunchest ally in the region. It's a task made harder by deepening polarization in both countries. The recent sentencing of Uribe to 12 years of house arrest in a long-running witness tampering case has jolted the nation's politics with nine months to go before decisive presidential elections. The former president is barred from running but remains a powerful leader, and Moreno said his absence from the campaign trail could alter the playing field. He also worries that surging cocaine production could once again lead to a 'narcotization' of a bilateral relationship that should be about trade, investment and mutual prosperity. 'We want Colombia to be strong, we want Colombia to be healthy, we want Colombia to be prosperous and secure, and I think the people of Colombia want the exact same thing,' he added. 'So, the question is, how do we get there?' Goodman and Smyth write for the Associated Press. Smyth reported from Columbus, Ohio.


Forbes
41 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders getty 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 , 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.