The DEI Dilemma

Shawn Lo • May 23, 2025

On Jan. 25, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14173, ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government that aim to promote variety in various demographics in employment (White House). By cutting DEI programs, Trump hopes that the qualifications for leadership positions in corporate and governmental organizations will shift to a merit-based system, removing race and gender as factors for employment. However, DEI supporters argue that it helps establish equity within employment, benefiting individuals who otherwise have a disadvantage because of their socioeconomic status (Forbes). In addition, Trump’s executive order has sparked significant scrutiny, as critics argue that it compromises progress in addressing inequality. Nevertheless, Trump’s executive order will have lasting implications that affect fiscal spending and inclusion opportunities in federal agencies.

The inclusion initiatives promoted by DEI within corporate and federal organizations may offer benefits in terms of innovation and representation, but Trump's executive order would hinder them. In a study conducted by the London School of Economics, business firms implementing DEI campaigns allowed for a wider range of perspectives that correlated with producing more novel inventions and products. In addition, workforces that emphasize DEI have been shown to adhere to comprehensive and cooperative dialogue because employees feel more valued and willing to share their unique insights in decision-making (Forbes). Trump’s executive order could disrupt these benefits by limiting diversity-focused initiatives through several steps. First, the executive order will direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to dismantle DEI principles within federal grant and financial assistance allocation (The White House). Secondly, Trump’s policy will also revoke several executive orders from the Obama Administration, including Executive Order 13672 which mandated affirmative action programs for ethnic and racial inclusion in federal contracts (National Archives). For now, the private sector can still implement DEI, but the executive order will obligate Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate corporate DEI programs. Moreover, the executive order will specifically issue federal lawsuits targeting publicly traded corporations worth more than $500 million that practice “illegal” DEI principles (White House). Because of potential legal liability, more businesses could end their DEI policies as Target and Meta recently have (TIME). Senior Brian Son believes that Trump’s plan to erode DEI undermines efforts to help individuals who are disproportionately disadvantaged in the workforce.

“DEI [covers] people with disabilities and veterans who deserve equal respect,” Son said. “Only DEI can address biases that prevent [disadvantaged] individuals from [obtaining] employment.”

While DEI can foster a diversity of opinions, Trump’s executive order to end it could also prove beneficial in terms of fiscal policy. In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration allocated a total of $1 billion toward DEI programs (Committee on Education and Workforce). Moreover, press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the DEI initiatives organized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), calling them fiscally wasteful (Forbes). Leavitt disclosed that USAID spent a significant portion of taxpayer dollars specifically on foreign DEI operations including $1.5 million for Serbia’s DEI workforce program and $75,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland (Forbes). Republicans have argued that DEI funds could have been directed towards more “pressing issues” like inflation and the rising national debt. At the same time, there are concerns that DEI funding isn’t being used efficiently as a former director at Facebook was found guilty of laundering $4 million meant for diversity and inclusion projects (U.S. Attorney’s Office). While Trump's policy to end DEI could help redirect taxpayer money to more immediate priorities, his executive order also highlights an increasing frustration regarding DEI’s supposed preclusion of meritocracy. In Runkel v. City of Springfield, Illinois Mayor Jim Langfelder purposely hired Black employees into his administration without ever reviewing employee qualifications (Reuters). Langfelder supposedly utilized DEI initiatives to promote his campaign race as progressive and diverse (Reuters). Moreover, in another case, Lutz v. Liquidity Services Inc., white employees were fired to improve Liquidity Services Inc’s diverse public profile. In light of increasing scrutiny over DEI reverse discrimination cases, senior Chiamaka Ukeje, Peninsula’s Black Student Union president, shared her perspective on how DEI has made progressive steps for inclusion across multiple racial groups.

“The [debate] about DEI isn’t simply an issue of merit versus race,” Ukeje said. “DEI is set in place so workplaces cannot discriminate against employees [that are minorities]. [Critics of DEI] fail to take into consideration that DEI has also helped white women and veterans attain jobs in workplaces that would not have hired them otherwise.”

While Trump’s executive action may be subjected to injunctions that could prevent its immediate enforcement, the policy of the executive action itself could have lasting effects on diversity, equity and inclusion in the private and public sectors. Supporters of Trump’s policy have highlighted that meritocracy should be the sole factor in employment and that DEI itself is discrimination. Moreover, the executive order also poses the question of whether DEI funding, especially foreign projects, is an efficient use of limited resources. Junior Issac Kim shared his view on DEI.

“In an ideal society, a meritocracy could function as a way to separate the wheat from the proverbial chaff, but [we don’t live in an ideal society],” Kim said. “[The world] objectively has social, educational and economic inequality, [and DEI is a tool to prevent] both the professional and academic spheres [from being] stuffed with only a certain kind of privileged [people].”