Just hours after taking office, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order that banned  Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) from receiving federal funding. Even more, on his second day in office, he issued an order that terminates affirmative action policies. These orders reversed a 60-year-old executive order enacted during the civil rights era.

Many institutions have changed their policies to comply with the new orders, taking away much of the funding that goes to DEI programing or eliminating them completely. President Trump has put many of the DEI federal staff- many of whom are women of color- on paid leave, with the intent of laying them off completely.

ReNika Moore, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) racial justice program explained, “[p]rograms labeled as DEI encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and ensure opportunities aren’t limited based on race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” She then explained the importance of these initiatives in the workplace and how they provide equal opportunity to employees. 

Critics of DEI federal funding argue that its programming can give an unfair advantage to individuals in minority groups who might be less qualified than majority candidates who might be more skilled. Some may argue that DEI and affirmative action funding could be unfair, as it might be biased toward people of color, women, or those with disabilities. They may argue that it could give individuals in a historically underrepresented minority favored treatment, that it could lead to “reverse discrimination” and favor those who are not a part of those groups. On a popular social media app, Instagram, Fox News posted, “Bye, Bye, DEI,” seemingly excited about the new executive order.

Moreover, educational institutions and universities are changing policies to fit the new executive order. Recently, Iowa State University, University of Northern Iowa and the University of Iowa removed housing groups that aim to include students of color and LGBTQ+ students. 

Though the topic of DEI programming and affirmative action can be controversial, its foundational work and ideas were crucial to ensuring equal care in the workplace. Moore described, “recruiting at underrepresented institutions or ensuring fairness in promotion criteria helps address systemic inequities without disadvantaging any individual.” By giving federal funding to DEI programs, workplaces can ensure that they are able to address ongoing barriers for underrepresented groups of people, and ensure equal protection and opportunities for their employees.

Furthermore, civil rights organizations have begun to sue the Trump Administration due to the targeted policies. One lawsuit was filed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal, and according to Erica L. Green, a writer for the New York Times, the lawsuit claimed, 

“President Trump’s executive orders requiring a halt to spending on diversity initiatives throughout the federal government violated several provisions of the Constitution, including the First and Fifth Amendments, and intentionally discriminated against Black and transgender people.” 

Furthermore, the lawsuit claimed that President Trump exceeded his authority- and that the president can not govern exclusively by issuing executive orders. The lawsuit outlined how President Trump’s decision to remove federal DEI funding threatens some businesses’ very existence, should they comply with the order.

According to the 101-page complaint filed alongside the lawsuit, “[t]he terms of the Executive Orders are extraordinarily vague and could prohibit Plaintiffs from engaging in any targeted effort to help a specific group of people facing unfair disadvantages.”

The lawsuit also mentioned that though President Trump has his views and opinions, the First Amendment would not allow him to inflict his viewpoint on federal funding programs and that he is not allowed to abuse the power of filing executive orders.

Green concluded, “[t]he revocation of federal funding would require the foundation to cease operating, cutting off services for nearly 7,000 people, including 1,300 households that currently receive housing assistance.”