For people who believe that only straight, heterosexual White men should be in charge of running powerful agencies or even a country, these are interesting times. Currently, the most powerful and influential social conservative in the world resides once again in the White House for a second term and seems as determined as a bulldog to expunge supposedly “amoral” and “unfair” diversity policies from American society.

In 2023, the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action policies in university admissions. A growing list of American companies, from Ford to Goldman Sachs, have sharply relented from their commitment to previous corporate principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to wage war upon and dismantle DEI rules that have “supposedly lowered standards” and “limited economic productivity” in politics, trade, and education.

The fact is that for a large percentage of institutions, promoting diversity has been a recent priority that emerged after the eruption of anti-racist activism that Black Lives Matter and George Floyd’s murder ignited in 2020. Indeed, DEI’s socially embracing values and capitalism’s social Darwinist spirit have always been a tense fit. For all but the most socially conscious businesses, recruiting and employing people with humanitarian intentions is far less important than achieving the bottom line, making money and satisfying shareholders.

In many supposedly holistically diverse enterprises, genuine representation of a diverse, pluralistic workforce, particularly as it relates to more senior, executive-level positions, has been distressingly slow and far from accomplished. If we are being frank, across the political spectrum, diversity policies from the far left to the far right have frequently been cynically viewed through jaundiced eyes as primarily benign attempts at window dressing in an effort to beautify corporate America’s badly ravaged public image. Now that the political climate has dramatically changed, such efforts are being aggressively dismissed.

After taking office in 2025, Trump did move to target DEI initiatives (in the federal government and in private universities) and transgender-athlete participation in sports. Furthermore, the president has gone even further, working to undermine safeguards that were in place long before DEI or woke became part of the vernacular. This comprehensive project is one that astute observers of the plans presented in Project 2025 would have expected - but that many voters may not have anticipated, advocated, intended, or supported.

Last April, Trump signed an executive order to revoke the theory of disparate impact, an approach that allows policies to be assessed not just on whether their intent is to discriminate but also on whether their effect is discriminatory. Disparate impact has been a crucial weapon for civil rights enforcement since the mid-1960s. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is being ever increasingly dismantled (and has continued to shutter talented individuals) and has been redefined around right-wing causes such as nonsensical, disproven claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election. Andrea Lucas, the irascible head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, posted the following on X to review complaints: “Are you a White male who’s experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws.” To add insult to injury, the administration is arrogantly attempting to erode post–Civil War constitutional amendments.

Historically speaking, this is hardly an inaugural attempt as it relates to attacks on racial, gender, and other forms of diversity. During the 1980s, the Reagan administration spearheaded fierce campaigns toward diversity policies. Reagan deviously attempted to abolish the federal government’s affirmative action program, which he viewed as “bureaucratic” social engineering. He also sharply slashed funding for the agency that ratified equal opportunity employment law, dramatically reducing the number of cases it brought against companies. Interestingly, despite this hostility toward such inclusive policies, the administration’s efforts were quickly stalled. Fierce opposition emerged from more centrist senior individuals in the Republican Party. More notably, in contrast to the current era, big business provided ample support for diversity policies.

Corporations eloquently and convincingly made the case that diverse workforces were an asset given that such pluralistic talent made for a more innovative, productive, and robust environment able to relate effectively to a vast audience of customers both domestically and internationally. Businesses shrewdly and deftly promoted affirmative action policies in more neutral, less politically charged language - “human resources management.” In essence, the Reagan administration quietly abandoned its attempt to abolish affirmative action. Today, in contrast to the political climate of forty-plus years ago, rabid, relentless, and ribald forces of White male supremacy have a more racially, ruthless, right-wing media on their side than in Reagan’s day. Donald Trump and other reactionary populists have made their intentions clear to resist compromising their culturally exclusionary agendas compared to their more fair-minded conservative forebears.

However, with various facets of multiculturalism considerably more deeply etched into American and global society, nullifying diversity policies will be far more arduous to accomplish than Trump has arrogantly been trying to do with his executive orders. Although not given much mainstream media attention, opposition is successfully sustaining. Numerous corporations have found ways to remain inclusive. From the outset, in 2025, Apple shareholders voted against ending the company’s diversity program. DEI initiatives have been rebranded - not disbanded,” despite considerable consternation from certain right-wing outfits. The fact is that CEOs, corporations, and stakeholders are not stupid. If diversity policies increase profits, then even the most vehemently racially rapacious anti-DEI campaign is unlikely to succeed.

Additionally, what supporters of such regressive policies desire seems devoid of any clarity. Are they advocating for a society where straight White men dominate? Such a goal would be virtually impossible. Do they accept the reality of a diverse society, as long as diversity doesn’t influence it? On these questions, conservatives are far from having a coherent mindset. Even the bigoted Trump occasionally acknowledges American diversity’s presence and importance. Last year, during his inauguration speech, he elatedly recited his “increase of support from... young and old, men and women, Black Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and other traditionally democratic groups.” Not surprisingly, all of these groups returned to the Democratic Party in November 2025. Given the economy’s current state, renewed outrage concerning the Epstein files following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s disastrous congressional performance, and the increasing infighting and similar intra-party conflicts occurring within various strands of the political right - MAGA, Never Trumpers, conservative independents, etc. - many conservative factions are probably feeling politically anxious if not outright nervous at the moment. Yes, things are in the early stages, but people’s emotions and wallets are in high gear and appear to be poised for rapid change. Such political restlessness more likely than not does not bode well for Republicans.