The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
Explainer
The Impact of Project 2025 on DEI Initiatives
Advancing DEI Initiative
Many of us are understandably concerned about the implications of the upcoming election on the field of DEI. Project 2025 also known as the “2025 Presidential Transition Project,” is a handbook authored by a coalition of conservative organizations (led by The Heritage Foundation), which outlines a detailed agenda for the next conservative President to adopt immediately after taking office. Project 2025 has been a topic of discussion throughout the election, and this explainer summarizes major components of Project 2025 that relate to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
The handbook’s DEI recommendations fit into four main categories: (1) Abolishing DEI offices and personnel; (2) Ending the government’s participation in DEI initiatives; (3) Amending laws to align with a conservative vision of nondiscrimination; (4) Taking enforcement action against organizations that engage in DEI.
Abolishing DEI offices and personnel
The handbook repeatedly calls for the abolition of DEI offices and staff, including in the military (p. 103), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (p. 258), National Institutes of Health (p. 462), Internal Revenue Service (p. 701), Treasury (p. 708), and financial regulators (p. 830).
Ending the government’s participation in DEI initiatives
The handbook cites miscellaneous DEI practices that the federal government should immediately cease, such as removing DEI requirements from USAID contracts and awards (p. 258), ending NIH’s “quota practice” of only sponsoring conferences with sufficient woman panelists (p. 462), banning federal funding of “critical race theory training” (p. 582), and eliminating EEO-1 data collection, which compiles workforce diversity statistics (p. 583). More broadly, it calls for an executive order requiring “an accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/gender ideology” (p. 358), suggesting a goal of identifying and rooting out all DEI activities within the federal government. These aspects of the handbook are best summarized by a statement early in the document that DEI must be deleted from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists” (pp. 4-5).
Amending laws to align with a conservative vision of nondiscrimination
The handbook calls for Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and similar laws to be amended to eliminate disparate impact liability (which currently allows organizations to be sued for programs that have significant discriminatory effects, even in the absence of discriminatory intent) (p. 583). The document also recommends amending Title VII to prohibit racial classifications in employment (p. 583), and rescinding Executive Order 11246 (which requires federal contractors to ensure equal opportunity) as well as the federal office that enforces Executive Order 11246 (p. 583). The handbook also seeks to strengthen legal standards allowing religious employers to flout antidiscrimination laws, and make it harder for employers to refuse to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees (p. 586).
Taking enforcement action against organizations that engage in DEI
Finally, the handbook calls for rigorous enforcement action against “all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional and legal requirements” (p. 562), including those who engage in “racial classifications and quotas” or “DEI trainings that promote critical race theory” (pp. 582-83).
Conclusion
If enacted, the objectives outlined in Project 2025 would significantly disrupt DEI efforts across various sectors, posing challenges to ongoing work toward fostering equitable and just workplaces. While this explainer serves to inform visitors about these potential shifts, it also underscores the urgency for organizations to reflect on how they can proactively support and sustain DEI initiatives, regardless of the political landscape and the outcome of the election. Now is the time for institutions to reaffirm their commitment to DEI and strategize on how to continue advancing these values, even in the face of opposition, to better support the communities most vulnerable to and impacted by Project 2025.