Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies in the United States trace their roots back to the civil rights movements of the 1960s, particularly through the enactment of Affirmative Action programs. Originally designed to correct historical injustices and systemic discrimination, Affirmative Action focused heavily on race and gender, especially in education and employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a key legislative milestone, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, further cemented these principles by mandating nondiscriminatory practices in hiring and employment among federal contractors.

While Affirmative Action primarily used quotas and preferential treatment to ensure diverse representation, DEI emerged as a broader, more systemic approach. DEI goes beyond race and gender to include considerations like disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic background. Importantly, DEI did not replace Affirmative Action but rather expanded its scope, focusing less on quotas and more on creating equitable systems, fostering inclusive workplaces, and addressing barriers to opportunity.

The modern DEI framework gained significant traction during the Obama administration and was formalized in the federal government under President Biden’s Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government), which institutionalized equity assessments across all federal agencies.

On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order to dismantle Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) programs across the federal government. Framing DEI efforts as discriminatory and wasteful, the administration ordered the immediate termination of DEI-related offices, training programs, and federal contracts. This marks a significant shift in U.S. civil rights policy.

The order directly targets the Biden administration’s DEI framework, rooted in Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” It accuses the initiative of promoting “illegal and immoral discrimination” and calls for the elimination of DEI considerations in federal hiring, funding, and workplace training.

While the public debate often frames DEI as primarily benefiting racial minorities, the scope of its impact is far wider. DEI frameworks aim to foster equal opportunity for all, focusing on gender, disability, veteran status, socioeconomic background, sexual orientation, age, and more. This policy reversal therefore affects a broad swath of American society—some of whom may not even realize they were protected under these initiatives.

Racial and ethnic minorities remain among the most significantly impacted, as DEI initiatives have played a vital role in addressing systemic racial disparities in employment, education, and federal contracting. These programs have created pathways for underrepresented groups to gain access to opportunities that have been historically out of reach. Women, too, face potential setbacks. DEI programs aimed at closing the gender pay gap and increasing women’s representation in leadership positions now face elimination, threatening progress made in workplace equity and gender-based protections.

DEI initiatives include workplace protections and inclusion efforts that support the LGBTQ+ community, ensuring fair treatment in hiring, healthcare access, and employee benefits. With these initiatives rolled back, this community may face renewed barriers in professional settings. Veterans and individuals with disabilities, often overlooked in DEI debates, are among those most directly affected. Federal DEIA policies have ensured accessibility, workplace accommodations, and specific hiring initiatives designed to integrate these groups into the workforce. Rescinding these protections could undermine the stability and security of veterans and disabled individuals who rely on them for equitable access to employment and services. Rural and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, frequently underrepresented in government programs, will also feel the effects. There are several DEI programs focused on addressing systemic poverty and improving healthcare and educational opportunities in underserved geographic areas.

Discussions about DEI rollbacks overlook the fact that several key groups within Trump’s support base benefit from DEI initiatives. Such groups like low-income voters, a significant part of Trump’s base, gain from DEI programs focused on education, healthcare access, and job training. Military veterans, another core demographic, rely on DEI policies for job placement, healthcare, and workplace accommodations—support systems now at risk. Rural voters, often facing higher disability rates, could lose critical accessibility and healthcare benefits. Additionally, white non-college-educated women, may see setbacks in gender equity protections like pay equity and parental leave.

By eliminating DEI offices and defunding equity-centered grants and contracts, the order reduces representation of marginalized groups in government and federally funded organizations. It also mandates that federal agencies remove DEI considerations from hiring practices, performance reviews, and grant decisions, shifting focus strictly to merit-based assessments. While supporters argue that this promotes fairness, critics contend that it ignores systemic inequalities and undermines efforts to level the playing field.

The policy shift has broader societal implications as well. Civil rights organizations are expected to challenge the Executive Order, potentially leading to prolonged legal battles. Legal experts argue that the elimination of DEI programs could violate existing anti-discrimination laws, setting the stage for significant court cases that could redefine the scope of civil rights protections in the United States. Beyond legal challenges, the rescindment of DEI programs risks reducing workplace diversity—a factor that research has consistently linked to overall organizational success.

For marginalized communities, this rollback signals a retreat from commitments to equity and inclusion, potentially deepening existing social divisions. The decision may also intensify debates around identity politics and civil rights, shaping future legislative and electoral conversations. As states consider adopting their own DEI protections in response to the federal rollback, the U.S. could face a fragmented policy landscape where protections vary widely based on geography.

Ultimately, this Executive Order not only dismantles years of DEI-focused progress but also affects a surprising number of Americans—including many within Trump’s own support base. The long-term implications of this policy shift remain uncertain, but its immediate effects will be felt across communities that have relied on DEI initiatives to promote fairness, accessibility, and opportunity.