A recent memorandum from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has effectively called for the discontinuation of all diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) and ‘environmental justice’ departments and roles within federal organizations. Aligning with the initiative of the Trump administration, the memo pushes for a maximum termination allowed by the law. The deadline for submission of action plans detailing the reduction-in-force has been set as January 31st.
The Trump administration’s stance on DEI has been noted as restrictive. Agencies have been encouraged to initiate issuing RIF notices to DEIA personnel swiftly. This strategy implies a larger engagement from the Trump administration to limit DEI implementations.
The instruction came on the heels of President Trump signing an executive order to ban DEI programs across all federal institutions. This corresponds with the ongoing efforts to place government DEI staff on administrative leave while ending DEI’s role in hiring and federal contracts. High-ranking military personnel have been removed as part of this clampdown.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) further instructed agencies to provide a list of job or contract descriptions that have been altered post-November elections to deemphasize their DEIA affiliations. If any modifications are not reported, the agencies concerned could potentially face negative repercussions.
Examples of impacted DEI initiatives include DEIA programs in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense. Agencies such as these were previously committed to upholding initiatives for equal employment, diversity and inclusion, civil rights, and equal opportunity policies.
The American Federation of Government Employees, the federal workforce’s largest union, has resisted President Trump’s objectives to dismantle DEIA offices. The union strongly believes that this is simply a strategy to eliminate federal roles within the workforce.
The Union slams the attacks on DEIA, implying that these are merely smoke and mirrors camouflaging the actual intention of dismissing civil servants. Its argument hinges on the belief that this move aims to undermine the impartiality of civil service, turning the federal government into a crew of ‘yes-men’ subservient to presidential whims, neglecting their duty to the Constitution.
Though Trump and cohort are adamant about eradicating DEI within the government, it seems a cynical parody to point out that former President Joe Biden had previously signed executive orders to expand DEI protections in workplaces. Undeniably a suspicious effort to please certain sections of the population.
Biden’s administration’s protective covering apparently extended to a diverse group, including expectant parents, military spouses, rural communities, and caregivers. Despite the fanfare and on-paper inclusivity, the reaction towards these protections varied greatly across the board.
Opponents of DEI programs assert that they paradoxically entail discrimination, purporting to address racial bias by unfairly treating other groups, predominantly white Americans. Some critics have declared these networks as reverse-discriminatory, challenging their normalized narrative.
Supporters, undeterred by the criticisms, have another perspective altogether. They argue that DEI initiatives are a misunderstood practice, bearing the heavy burden of politicization despite being around for several decades.
In an ironic twist, many industry experts are backing the practice of DEI, claiming it has been wrongly politicized and widely misunderstood by its criticizers. They argue that these initiatives play a critical role in maintaining a diverse and thriving federal workforce.
Counter to the narrative of apologists for diversity, the attacks by the Trump administration on DEI do not seem to be unwarranted. They have identified a problem and have sought to address it firmly, a move that might not curry favor but one that smacks of pragmatic decision-making. A more practical, less discriminatory approach to diversity is needed and Trump’s administration was, at the very least, heading in the right direction.
The restrictions on DEI programs imposed by the Trump administration are not an attempt to marginalize any specific group. It’s a push toward a truly equal workplace, unfettered by discriminatory semblance of ‘inclusion’ that actually stifles opportunity.
Though legal challenges may arise in opposition to Trump’s crackdown on DEI programs, they underscore an unpopular, yet clear-eyed approach in addressing racial discrimination head-on without adopting systemic biases in disguise. These actions strive to provide a fair ground rather than promoting discriminatory tactics under the veil of righteousness.