Following Trump’s reelection in 2024 and the passage of his executive order banning DEI in the federal government when he assumed office on January 20, 2025, there has been increased discussion and scrutiny of DEI programs across the country. 

DEI has been a hot topic of discussion in the American political landscape. But recently, with state-level legislation pressuring companies to reasses their commitments to DEI and large companies like Meta, X, and Disney removing or scaling back earlier programs, the era of DEI seems to be drawing to a close.

What does this mean?

Data has shown that companies with diverse leadership experience higher profitability and improved brand reputation. Therefore, it is likely that as 2025 progresses, a more subtle form of DEI will emerge. 

The Harvard Business Review has made suggestions to companies about how to better balance political, financial, and social pressures while maintaining strategic DEI programs. They recommend focusing on closing pay gaps, increasing diversity in leadership, and other measurable goals.

Ultimately, organizations wanting to keep their commitments to DEI must adapt to the changing political landscape by using nuanced messaging to appeal to a diverse community while complying with state and federal regulations. Some companies, like Netflix and Microsoft, have already become examples of how these new-and-improved DEI programs could look, tying diversity metrics to business goals.

Is it really that different?

Even if formal titles have changed, DEI programs are still DEI programs. While greater diversity will always lead to greater understanding and representation of clients or communities, it is important to remember that the ends don’t always justify the means. Choosing individuals while only looking to increase diversity metrics can create what seems like diversity on the surface, but not diversity of character or thought. 

More subtle DEI programs are, arguably, more dangerous than their older counterparts. At least in the past few years, dedication to diversity in admissions was clearly documented and even advertised. However, when companies are subtle in their messaging but doing the same thing, the public is less able to understand their operations.