What Trump’s Second Term Could Mean for DEI

Cross-posted from Harvard Business Review

Those who support the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion are rightly concerned about the impact of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

It’s clear from his first-term record, his running mate’s agenda, and his early personnel decisions that the incoming Trump administration will almost certainly escalate the growing backlash against DEI in the workplace. So, how can leaders continue to build just and inclusive organizations even in this extremely challenging environment?

What to Expect in Trump’s Second Term

Dismantling DEI has become a core mission of the conservative political movement, whose tactics include anti-DEI lawsuits, anti-DEI legislation, and routine attacks on DEI in the public arena. As such, the incoming Trump administration is likely to wage a multi-pronged assault on DEI by:

Issuing anti-DEI executive orders

In September 2020, Trump issued an executive order that purported to ban federal contractors from engaging in so-called “divisive” DEI training. While the order was revoked by President Biden, Trump’s allies have reportedly prepared an executive order for the president to sign on day one, which would “eliminate programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

To be clear, it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment to ban the “promotion” of DEI. Similarly, any order restricting organizations from training their own employees on DEI topics would be challenged in the courts. Given that a similar state law was struck down earlier this year, a court challenge would have a strong chance of success. But such an executive order could nonetheless have a significant chilling effect.

Implementing the Project 2025 DEI agenda

During the campaign, Trump repeatedly sought to distance himself from Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals produced by a team that included many advisors from his first administration. Even if this disavowal was sincere, he is likely to face significant pressure from the conservative legal and political movement to implement the anti-DEI agenda items in that document. These include:

• Abolishing DEI offices and staff within the federal government

• Rescinding another executive order that requires federal contractors to ensure equal opportunity

• Taking enforcement action against organizations that engage in “racial classifications and quotas” or “DEI trainings that promote critical race theory”

• Amending anti-discrimination law to remove “disparate impact” liability, a change that would make it impossible to challenge policies that appear neutral but have a significant discriminatory effect — for example, unnecessary hiring tests that disproportionately screen out women and people of color

Such changes would be substantially harder to challenge in court than an executive order on DEI training. If enacted in full, this agenda would deliver a devastating blow to the field of DEI and take concerted effort for a future administration to undo.

Shaping the judiciary

Trump will also have the opportunity to appoint new federal judges and justices, aided by a Republican-led Senate to confirm his nominations. This includes adding younger conservative justices to the Supreme Court if Justice Samuel Alito or Justice Clarence Thomas retire, fortifying a conservative supermajority that would likely further constrain the practice of DEI.

What Organizations Can Do

How can organizations advance DEI in this daunting environment? In 2016, one of us (Kenji) co-developed three models for how multinational organizations could support LGBTQ+ inclusion in countries that are hostile to LGBTQ+ rights:

• Model 1: “When In Rome.” Companies adhere to the local norms and laws of the hostile jurisdiction, even if that means diluting some of their pro-LGBTQ+ commitments.

• Model 2: “Embassy.” Companies adopt pro-LGBTQ+ policies internally, but do not push for change in the wider society.

• Model 3: “Advocate.” Companies seek to shift local laws and social norms in a pro-LGBTQ+ direction.

We believe the landscape for pro-DEI organizations in the United States is now analogous to the landscape for pro-LGBTQ+ organizations in hostile countries abroad. As such, this framework can guide organizations on how to advance DEI under the second Trump presidency.

“When in Rome”: Comply, but don’t over-comply

As the legal environment increasingly constricts — or even outlaws — certain forms of DEI, some leaders may be tempted to throw their hands in the air and conclude that the entire DEI enterprise is risky. That conclusion would be a mistake.

Even under the most pessimistic scenario, many forms of DEI will remain lawful under a Trump presidency. These include expanding outreach to broaden candidate pools, adopting structured interview processes, creating mentorship and coaching programs that are open to all, conducting employee education, and auditing evaluation and promotion processes to remove bias, among many others. DEI programs that do not confer a “preference” on legally protected groups (such as groups defined by race or sex) are likely to remain legally safe for the foreseeable future.

Leaders can therefore advance DEI by educating colleagues to distinguish between lawful and unlawful forms of DEI. They can also ensure that only the clearly unlawful forms are abandoned or tweaked, while protecting and enhancing the remaining programs.

“Embassy”: Create a safe haven

In an anti-LGBTQ+ country, sometimes the workplace is the only setting where LGBTQ+ people experience safety and belonging. Now that the political environment in the United States is likely to become increasingly hostile to a variety of marginalized people, workplaces should conceive of themselves as safe havens.

Organizations can double down on programming aimed at creating an inclusive climate for people of all backgrounds, especially those most at risk under a Trump administration, such as trans individuals, immigrants, pregnant workers, and people of color. Wherever legally possible, organizations can provide access to services (such as healthcare) that the government may strip away, strengthen affinity groups so they have adequate resources to provide employees with much-needed peer support, and give workers the skills to serve as allies and inclusive leaders.

No matter how hostile the external environment becomes, organizations have control over the culture within their own walls. Indeed, they have a responsibility to create such a refuge as the only bodies capable of providing it within the workplace.

Advocate: Shift the narrative

Finally, organizations can use their powerful voices to advocate for DEI in the public sphere.

In the time since the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions decision, anti-DEI activists have filed a barrage of lawsuits attacking workplace DEI and used social media to frame DEI as divisive and discriminatory.

Against that backdrop, many organizations have pursued DEI work by stealth, hoping they can ride the wave of backlash without attracting public ire or a damaging lawsuit. Yet their silence has created a false impression that organizations have abandoned DEI en masse and allowed anti-DEI activists to fill the vacuum with misleading talking points.

There are plenty of modern examples of organizations standing up for their values in the face of attack, such as the leaders of Mercedes-Benz and Porsche condemning xenophobia in Germany and expressing support for diversity and freedom earlier this year, or more than 200 American companies publicly opposing anti-LGBTQ+ laws in 2022. It is essential under the incoming Trump presidency that pro-DEI organizations advocate loudly for DEI, such as through public statements, amicus briefs in litigation, or support for civil rights groups.

. . .

These three models are not mutually exclusive; pro-DEI organizations can and should adopt all of them. They are also not equally effective in promoting DEI. The “When in Rome” model is the most modest and the “Advocate” model is the most ambitious. Large organizations in particular, such as Fortune 500 companies and major professional services firms, have the ability — and the duty — to serve as advocates when others may lack the power or resources to do so.

Proponents of DEI face an enormous struggle over the next four years. Yet the demographics of this country are irreversibly shifting to become more diverse along lines such as race, ethnicity, religion, and LGBTQ+ status. We believe that the organizations that will succeed over the long term are those that embrace the opportunity presented by our rapidly diversifying society and use it to advance justice and inclusion for all.

That task is more urgent than ever.