First responders and National Guardsmen were still retrieving dead bodies from the icy waters of the Potomac River on January 30 when President Donald Trump stated to the nation that his presidential predecessors, Democrats, and diversity were the prime culprits in the fatal collision of an Army helicopter and an American Airlines passenger plane landing at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Less than five minutes from asking for a moment of silence to remember the victims, Trump abruptly started touting his draconian political agenda, primarily his promises to reduce the strength of the federal workforce and eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from all agencies. The president told reporters he had seen no evidence to attribute the crash to changes in hiring standards for air traffic controllers. Rather, he commented, “It just could have been.” When asked why, he replied, “Because I have common sense.” Please!

As should be expected, Trump’s remarks elicited sharp bipartisan rebukes from both Republicans and Democrats on Thursday, many of whom said the president was politicizing a tragedy and using it to further his agenda. The Congressional Black Caucus replied that the mourning of the victims was “marred by a truly disgusting and disgraceful display of racist political prognostication.” Mr. Trump had moved “to falsely blame the diversity initiatives of past administrations for the cause of this incident. Not only are the president’s claims untrue, they also speak to the Republican Party’s desire to divide us as a country.” Presidential historian and Vanderbilt University professor Douglas Brinkley said, “At these moments you’re supposed to take a solemn note of respect. That’s what we do in America when tragedy occurs . . . But Trump tried to use it as an opportunity to push the MAGA 2025 agenda in a nonsensical way.” Exactly!

Over the past few years, influential voices on the right have talked about DEI programs in disparaging and shrouded tones, arguing that they provide unfair advantages to non-White people and women (rather than serving to address the unfair advantages often enjoyed by White men). It is an issue that has found political cachet with a segment of Trump’s base, largely because it complimented the sense of grievance that has long buoyed his support.

Donald Trump does not give a damn about meritocracy. If he genuinely did so, then Pete Hegseth - a former Fox News host accused of having a history of alcohol and spousal abuse as well as professional misconduct - would not be in the position of secretary of defense. If he was concerned about merit, then JD Vance, one of the least experienced politicians in American history, would not be vice president of the United States. If merit-based qualifications were an utmost priority, neither Robert F. Kennedy Jr. nor Kash Patel would be a heartbeat away from serving as secretary of health and human services or director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

What does DEI mean to the president and his administration? It is the presence - in a skilled or high-status role - of anyone who is not White, male, and able-bodied, regardless of qualifications or abilities. At the same time, in the Orwellian formulation of the president and his allies, it is meritocracy to bestow the highest public trust on men like Hegseth, who have, if nothing else, the right look.

Any politically and culturally astute adult, regardless of race, is well aware that the wanton MAGA right-wing attacks on DEI are intended to grant political license to all employers in corporate America, academia, hospitals, law firms, and so on to no longer provide justification for hiring or admitting solely White men, in particular, White males from one’s social circle, fraternity, congregation, country club, or social class. If someone falls into the “correct” category, employers can effectively tell the hiring agent, “He is okay. He is one of our kind of people.”

This is textbook racial discrimination, the type that was supposed to be nullified with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. On the contrary, what the administration appears to desire is the stratification of resources and human dignity along with race, gender, and physical ability. The Trump anti-DEI frenzy. At its core it is an effort to disappear Black people from public life altogether under the guise of protecting a White meritocracy which is a fallacy that never existed. Such efforts to end DEI disturbingly resemble Woodrow Wilson’s successful effort, in his first administration, to resegregate the federal work force in 1916.

The majority of American voters did elect Donald Trump. Nonetheless, in politically juggling the perennial topics of social justice warriors, “wokeness,” and DEI, the conservative right has been waging the same culture wars for more than a decade without generating a notable degree of outrage except from a minute group of habitually online, primarily right-wing activists. Therefore, DEI is not likely to be the three-headed boogeyman that effectively extinguishes the Trump administration’s political enemies. However, we all know that Trump is like a horse wearing blinders. Once he seems to make up his mind to pursue an agenda, he will not be deterred from it. This may very well be the case with his perverse attacks on DEI. Such a sinister effort must be aggressively challenged.