The Harms of Trump's DEI Cuts

By Siri Naz

Photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash

Donald Trump’s administration has consistently posed a severe threat to the security and well-being of many Americans, particularly marginalized communities, students, and the working class. While reductions in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs are a prominent example, they are a component of a strategic plan in which the administration uses federal funds to pressure organizations to support its political agenda. Under the pretense of advancing equality, this includes policies that impact educational institutions, social services, and cultural initiatives, all of which frequently cause disproportionate harm to marginalized groups.

Under Catherine Eschbach’s leadership, the OFCCP has intensified scrutiny of federal contractors' civil rights plans to identify and penalize discriminatory employment practices. This initiative stems from President Trump's executive order aiming to eliminate DEI policies, which he deems "illegal." The administration argues that DEI programs promote preferential treatment based on race or gender, undermining merit-based hiring and violating civil rights laws. Critics contend that this approach misrepresents the purpose of DEI initiatives (not to give unfair advantages, but to address historical injustices and systematic hurdles in workplace culture.) and may hinder efforts to address systemic inequalities.

The administration runs the risk of undoing policies intended to level the playing field for underrepresented groups by confusing equity with preferential treatment. Actions taken have raised concerns among contractors seeking clear compliance guidance, as without clear compliance requirements (i.e. equal employment opportunity and affirmative action programs), contractors may be unable to implement any proactive diversity efforts. Because of the ambiguity, many employers are struggling to balance their long-standing commitments to inclusive workplaces with federal pressure, potentially reversing progress on racial and gender parity in federal contracting.

The Trump administration implemented funding cuts for universities perceived as promoting progressive cultural values, policy that extended beyond just targeting DEI initiatives. Notably, $400 million in research grants were withheld from Columbia University, citing the institution's alleged failure to address antisemitic harassment on campus. At the same time, Harvard is suing the Trump administration for allegedly violating the Constitution and endangering academic freedom by freezing over $2 billion in federal research grants. During this period, the university has allocated $250 million from its own endowment to support research initiatives. Threatening the independence of academic institutions by weaponizing federal funding, these measures reflect President Trump’s larger strategy of using financial leverage to influence policies on contentious social issues—aiming to coerce universities into conforming with right-wing policies, undermining academic freedom, and setting a concerning precedent for future administrations. It is imperative that universities like these persevere and push back against financial intimidation, as a lack of institutional autonomy undermines student voices, and therefore weakens democracy.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration's call for a federal funds freeze threatened essential social and economic services, including child protection, juvenile justice services, foster care, and homeless shelters. This freeze jeopardized support for vulnerable populations nationwide. In Illinois, Governor JB Pritzker emphasized the severity of this threat, accusing “the Trump administration...of continuing to withhold nearly $1.9 billion from Illinois state agencies, with significant implications for Medicaid and other vital services.” He warned that such cuts would adversely affect agencies, businesses, and residents across the state.

While the administration justified these cuts as efforts to promote equality, they in fact disproportionately harmed marginalized communities, limiting their access to important resources and opportunities, deepening systemic inequality. Yes, there is complexity to balancing policy decisions, particularly concerning programs designed to foster diversity and inclusion, but what Trump’s administration is doing harms a plethora of people by reducing DEI initiatives across various sectors, from education to nonprofit services. I urge readers to stay informed, engage with local organizations that prioritize equity, and, when appropriate, contact their elected representatives to demand that federal funding prioritize inclusion over political agendas. Academic freedom and equal opportunity depend on our willingness to speak up and act.