How the Trump Attacks on DEI Will Enable Workplace Discrimination
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
Since his first day in office, President Donald Trump has been on a crusade against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the workplace. One ripple effect of this has been many large employers abandoning their own public-facing commitments to equity. Meanwhile, Trump has also gutted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces laws against workplace discrimination.
The president is sending a very clear message: Employers should feel emboldened to exclude and discriminate. As a civil rights attorney, I'm saying they should not.
Through my work as president of an organization called A Better Balance, which represents workers, I know it is critical to hold employers accountable to the law, and to combat misinformation geared to make the workplace a more hostile environment for groups that have historically been targets of discrimination, such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+ communities, and people with disabilities.
Our anti-discrimination laws exist to ensure workers are not shut out of employment on the basis of protected characteristics like race, sex, national origin, age, religion, pregnancy, disability, or any combination thereof. DEI programs have become a popular way for employers to proactively and transparently create more equitable workplaces. These programs do not break any laws, and are a recognition that certain groups have long been denied equal opportunity in the workforce, and that we all need to take active steps to move beyond harmful practices.
The Trump administration is using 'DEI' as a dog whistle to try to scapegoat marginalized workers — as with the White House's dangerous suggestion that federal workers with disabilities were somehow responsible for a deadly DC plane crash in January.
The administration has also been perpetuating a false narrative about who is impacted by discrimination, which is consistent with the president's vow during the election to crush 'anti-white' racism. These narratives create distractions as the Trump administration rolls back the clock on civil rights for workers employed by the federal government — the nation's largest employer.
Discrimination can be as obvious as a sign saying 'Women need not apply.' It can also be more insidious, such as a manager laying off a pregnant worker 'for her own good, so she can focus on the baby,' when she desperately needs her job and income to stay afloat.
Examples of cases brought before the federal government in the past six months that illustrate today's reality of workplace discrimination include:
A group of female housekeepers who were sexually harassed, then punished for reporting it — they received a $400,000 settlement;
transgender employees who were subjected to misgendering, deadnaming, and other forms of harassment, then fired;
a Muslim teenager who was harassed, retaliated against, and forced to quit her job after reporting a manager who forcibly removed her hijab — she received a $20,000 settlement;
employers systemically segregating and underpaying female workers;
employers refusing to hire qualified applicants simply because of their disabilities;
and employers firing workers because they needed time off to care for their health.
The EEOC enforces the federal laws that protect workers against discrimination, such as:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers who need changes to their usual work duties due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination against pregnant workers in hiring and firing;
and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against workers with disabilities, and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities.
It is the EEOC's job to interpret these laws and issue specific guidelines for how employers should apply them. When workers believe they have experienced discrimination, they can file a charge with the EEOC against their employer. The EEOC will conduct an investigation into the allegations in the charge, and, if they find evidence that the law was broken, will try to negotiate a settlement. Sometimes the EEOC files a lawsuit; most of the time it concludes the investigation by allowing the worker(s) to file their own lawsuit in court.
The EEOC is led by a bipartisan group of five presidentially appointed commissioners. Barely a week after taking office, Trump made an unprecedented power grab for more control over the EEOC, illegally firing two of the three Democratic EEOC commissioners. This leaves the agency unable to do critical aspects of its work. This also means there are now three vacancies for Trump to fill.
Until new commissioners are appointed, the agency will remain hamstrung and unable to fully enforce the law. With its own version of the EEOC, the Trump administration can simply choose not to enforce aspects of laws it does not like. It could also issue new guidelines that defy existing legal precedent, sowing confusion and distorting anti-discrimination law as a means to enforce its own agenda — like bullying employers into abandoning DEI programs, limiting women's reproductive choices, and enforcing the gender binary.
Agencies like the EEOC rely on funding from the executive branch and Congress to ensure they can fulfill their mission. With staff and budgets being slashed across the government, the EEOC will likely be impacted. That means longer wait times for workers filing charges, less capacity to hold employers accountable for breaking the law, and less funding for education and outreach.
If you believe your rights have been violated, the first step is to speak with an attorney who can help you understand your options. A Better Balance maintains a free, confidential legal helpline covering rights related to pregnancy, health, and caregiving in the workplace. Other organizations, like the National Employment Lawyers Association and state bar associations, can also provide referrals to employment lawyers licensed in your state.
Even if the EEOC is defanged, nonprofit legal advocacy organizations and civil rights attorneys will continue stepping in, representing workers whose rights have been violated and holding employers accountable.
Knowledge is power. You should make sure that you understand your legal rights so you can recognize when something at work isn't acceptable and advocate for yourself. You have the right to be free from discrimination and harassment on the basis of your race, color, sex (including gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation), age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, and disability.
One newer law that everyone should know about is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This act took effect in 2023 and was the first major advancement in workplace civil rights in decades. It gives pregnant and postpartum workers a right to changes at work that ensure they can keep their jobs without risking their health.
A Better Balance's Workplace Rights Hub has additional information about laws that can support you in caring for yourself and loved ones, without risking your paycheck.
You can also contact your senators and urge them to oppose extremist nominees and budget cuts at the EEOC. There are many threats to workers in the current political climate; employers' use of DEI programs is not one of them.
Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue
Want more labor coverage?
Billionaires Barely Pay Taxes — Here's How They Get Away With It
American Work Culture Is the Problem — Not You
What a Labor Union Is and How It Works
What Is Retaliation in the Workplace? Here Are Your Rights and What to Know
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
