
Demonised by Trump, DEI Professionals Go ‘Discreet' to Find Jobs
On the website of diversity consultant BWG Business Solutions is a sentence that would have felt out of place five years ago, when companies were bragging about their DEI efforts: 'Due to the increasing scrutiny and politicization of equity efforts, the public listing of clients and partnerships has been removed from this website.'
BWG's founder, Janice Gassam Asare, isn't the only one changing the way she's doing business now that the Trump administration has placed diversity, equity and inclusion in its crosshairs. The attacks are forcing professionals in the field to rebrand themselves to get contracts, battle over the remaining staff positions and reimagine what the industry will look like going forward. Some in the field are repositioning how they market themselves, including leaning away from talking about race and gender, and prioritising their leadership expertise, according to interviews with more than a dozen DEI professionals.
'I like to call it DEI done discreetly,' said Gassam Asare.
Some longtime BWG clients started letting contracts lapse in early 2024, as pushback against DEI entered the US presidential election. Gassam Asare said that corporate clients are now less interested in long-term consulting that includes a comprehensive equity audit — analyses that assess how policies impact various gender or racial groups — and surveys with staffers. They're more inclined to ask for workshops that don't require a long-term financial commitment. It's led to a 60 percent drop in the amount of money she's bringing in via contracts compared to two years ago.
'Companies aren't sure what the future of DEI is going to be,' she said, 'so they don't want to invest in what they fear could be illegal.'
For Keith Wyche, who writes and speaks about workplace culture and was previously a corporate vice president at Walmart Inc., the current environment is prompting him to emphasise other parts of his resume.
'Personally, I do make sure that I lean into my leadership skills, I lean into my career and background in change management transformation so that I'm not labelled a DEI guy,' he said.
In his first days in office, President Donald Trump made good on his pledge to fight what he called an 'anti-White feeling' in the US. He's signed executive orders aimed at pressuring corporations and other groups to end policies that constitute 'illegal DEI discrimination,' saying the initiatives disguise race and sex-based discrimination, undermine meritocracy and divide people into an 'identity-based spoils system.' He revoked a longstanding requirement that federal contractors follow affirmative action commitments and dismantled diversity programmes across the government.
A slew of US businesses including Amazon.com Inc. and Walmart rolled back their diversity and inclusion efforts as they increasingly face campaigns and legal attacks over their efforts.
A March NBC News survey found that a slightly higher share of voters had negative versus positive feelings on DEI, with roughly half of respondents saying there is 'too much political correctness in our society today.' That kind of divisiveness prompted Wyche to stop using the acronym altogether.
''DEI' has been co-opted to mean, you know, a bunch of other things,' he said. 'But when I say 'diversity, equity, and inclusion,' it's kind of hard to fight those three words.'
Michael Welp is the founder of WMFDP — or White Men as Full Diversity Partners. But the full name is one the organisation is shying away from, opting to use the acronym lately. When Welp runs multi-day leadership-coaching sessions on topics like conflict resolution or better communication, the first thing he asks prospective clients now is whether they are government contractors. If so, he'll change the sessions to veer away from explicitly discussing gender or race.
'I've actually moved more outside of the DEI space to honour what the laws are,' Welp said. 'And also I find that there's plenty of work to do in growing the kinds of leadership skills that people need that we use to grow DEI, without a need to focus on DEI.'
One recent example is an auto supplier that was having issues with team dynamics. WMFDP created a four-day programme aimed at improving how the group provides feedback and finding each of the team members' strengths.
'It was not necessary to have a conversation about race to do that, for example,' Welp said. But in the end, you improve 'those same kinds of skills.'
Corporate leaders are understandably jittery. In one of Trump's early executive orders, the president directed the head of every government agency to identify up to nine large public companies, nonprofits, universities and professional associations they think should be investigated over DEI policies.
And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, created in the Civil Rights era to fight discrimination in the workplace, has questioned some of the country's biggest law firms over their diversity focused hiring practices. Elsewhere, anti-DEI activists like Robby Starbuck are drumming up social media campaigns that have ended in companies like Deere & Co. and Tractor Supply Co. scaling back their initiatives.
And yet, at a January gathering of about 60 corporate CEOs, the moderator asked who in the audience was dismantling programmes within their corporations. No one raised their hand.
'Most CEOs tell us: 'We're going to do the work of diversity, equity and inclusion. We may not boast about it, you may not get a DEI annual report anymore, you may not see us use it as a branding opportunity. But we're going to do the work,' said Cid Wilson, president of the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility, a pro-DEI group working to advance the inclusion of Latinos in corporate America.
He's spoken to some 200 corporate leaders about the topic in recent months, and he's come away with what he described as interest in figuring out how to 'navigate this tighter lane.' Wilson added: 'That's been a very difficult maze.'
Since the US Supreme Court banned race-conscious admissions in colleges in 2023, company leaders worried about whether diversity programmes would face legal challenges, even if laws hadn't actually changed yet. Big companies, including Wall Street banks, began opening up programmes focused on women and minorities to include everyone and scouring their internal and external communications to weed out language that could draw scrutiny.
'If you're the general counsel, arguably you are the second most powerful person in corporate America right now,' Wilson said.
Companies are notably pulling back on hiring DEI-specific roles. The number of new positions at S&P 500 companies was down more than 70 percent in 2024 from a peak three years earlier, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. This year, just six new roles were added through the start of April. 'If your job title's got inclusion in it, it's either been changed or eliminated or repurposed,' said Chantalle Couba, who advises leadership at private sector companies, nonprofits and higher education institutions on human capital issues.
California-based Michael Streffery, who has been job hunting since the end of 2024 and has previously worked at Realtor.com and Ubisoft, is feeling the effects of those cuts. In recent months, he has been in the final round of interviewing for four DEI roles. Two of those positions were removed, and he didn't progress in the others.
'Have I considered pivoting to other areas like head of talent development, head of talent attraction, or HR business director?,' he said. 'Absolutely. And I have applied to those positions, but what I'm also seeing is that the competition is so extreme.'
Nearly all of the professionals interviewed said they expect the industry to transform further, though it's not entirely clear what that new reality will look like. Most agree that the days of plush budgets and listening sessions about race at work are gone, at least for now.
'My hot take is that we haven't done diversity well,' said Misty Gaither, who previously oversaw DEI at Indeed Inc. and now works as an independent consultant. She hopes this moment allows companies to move away from narrowly focusing on hiring diverse talent, which often draws pushback. The better strategy is making sure that performance reviews are equitable for those that fall into marginalised groups or ensuring talent development is accessible throughout an organisation.
'Moving away from more performative, topical things that have been bold headlines but really doing the hard work, the less sexy work,' Gaither said. 'I think that is something that can be a positive output from what we're seeing in this current landscape.'
By Kelsey Butler

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

Business Insider
23 minutes ago
- Business Insider
It sure looks like Mark Cuban is on board with Elon Musk's idea of a new political party
Billionaires Mark Cuban and Elon Musk seem to have found some common ground. As the Tesla CEO's relationship with President Donald Trump blows up in real time on social media amid their clash over the "Big Beautiful Bill," Musk proposed creating a new political party for "the middle." "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Musk asked in an X poll on Thursday. Cuban, who has sparred with Musk on X multiple times on subjects ranging from DEI to Trump, appeared to endorse the idea, responding to Musk's post with three check marks. Cuban did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. That Cuban is attracted to the idea of a new political party may not come as a surprise. The former "Shark Tank" star and Cost Plus Drugs founder has previously expressed his dismay with both political parties. He once described himself as "socially centrist" while "very fiscally conservative." During the 2024 election, Cuban campaigned heavily for former Vice President Kamala Harris, previously telling BI that he liked that she's "not an ideologue" and supporting her pro-business stance. In January, when journalist Matthew Yglesias proposed a 2028 presidential run for Cuban, BI asked the billionaire if he'd seriously consider the proposal. "No," Cuban responded.

Business Insider
40 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Mark Cuban appears to endorse Elon Musk's idea of creating a new political party for the '80% in the middle'
Billionaires Mark Cuban and Elon Musk seem to have found some common ground. As the Tesla CEO's relationship with President Donald Trump blows up in real time on social media amid their clash over the "Big Beautiful Bill," Musk proposed creating a new political party for "the middle." "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Musk asked in an X poll on Thursday. Cuban, who has sparred with Musk on X multiple times on subjects ranging from DEI to Trump, appeared to endorse the idea, responding to Musk's post with three check marks. Cuban did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. That Cuban is attracted to the idea of a new political party may not come as a surprise. The former "Shark Tank" star and Cost Plus Drugs founder has previously expressed his dismay with both political parties. He once described himself as "socially centrist" while "very fiscally conservative." During the 2024 election, Cuban campaigned heavily for former Vice President Kamala Harris, previously telling BI that he liked that she's "not an ideologue" and supporting her pro-business stance. In January, when journalist Matthew Yglesias proposed a 2028 presidential run for Cuban, BI asked the billionaire if he'd seriously consider the proposal. "No," Cuban responded.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.