Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
What to know
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) refers to a framework of organizational values and practices developed to counteract discrimination and bias, broaden participation, and promote equitable treatment and opportunities across professional, institutional, and social contexts. Rooted in the US civil rights movement of the 1960s, DEI became formalized in the 1980s and 1990s through the work of human resources professionals, management consultants, and educators. Its broad goal has been to ensure that institutions better reflect the diversity of the populations they serve and create environments in which all participants can thrive.
The U.S. DEI framework builds on two key predecessors:
- Affirmative action is a set of programs and policies designed to counteract disparities produced by historic and ongoing discrimination.
- Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) law prohibits workplace discrimination in hiring, pay, promotion, and conditions of employment.
Both frameworks generated sustained political and cultural backlash — part of a broader pattern of resistance to equity efforts dating back to the post-Reconstruction era. Examples include the formation of the Ku Klux Klan in 1866, the Wilmington massacre of 1898, the Red Summer of 1919, and opposition to the full extension of voting rights for women after the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. In contemporary terms, the rise of “red-pill” and “incel” subcultures online — sometimes associated with misogyny or extremism — has been described by experts as a form of backlash to perceived social and economic change.
Over time, DEI expanded to encompass a wide range of groups, including people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, disabled and neurodivergence people, immigrants, veterans, people experiencing poverty, and first-generation college students. New variations of the acronym, such as DEIB (belonging), DEIA (accessibility or anti-racism), JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion), and DEI+, have been adopted to reflect evolving priorities and contexts.
2025 brings new DEI meaning
While skepticism toward DEI has existed for decades across a broad ideological spectrum, the 2020s witnessed the emergence of a concentrated political movement to restrict or dismantle DEI programs, primarily led by conservative policymakers and activists. Opposition escalated in 2025, when President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting DEI initiatives in federal agencies and among contractors. The US Departments of Justice and Education subsequently interpreted some DEI programs as potential “illegal discrimination.”
In public discourse, opponents increasingly used “DEI” as shorthand or code for identity groups (for example, “DEI hire” or “DEI pilot”) and as a critique of perceived tokenism. These developments coincided with efforts to defund diversity initiatives in universities, curtail inclusive medical research, and remove references to systemic inequality and other historical facts from government websites. The resulting federal actions led to program closures, research disruption, and job losses among public-sector and academic workers.
Polling reflects a polarized public opinion. In 2025, an NBC News survey found that most Democrats supported DEI initiatives, nearly 60% of independents expressed some support, and most Republicans opposed them. A May 2025 AP-NORC poll found that four in ten Americans favored DEI programs in higher education, three in ten opposed them, and three in ten were neutral. Support was higher for specific measures such as scholarships for underrepresented students or coursework addressing racial history.
For journalists, accurately portraying this divide means conveying viewpoints without amplifying misinformation, identifying unsubstantiated claims, and clearly situating policy debates within verifiable historical and legal contexts.
Recent DEI history
By the 2010s, a majority of large US corporations offered diversity training or related initiatives. Research later showed that outcomes varied widely: some forms of training often had limited effect, while recruitment programs, mentorship systems, and accountability mechanisms tended to yield measurable gains. President Barack Obama established DEI as a priority for the federal workforce and in 2014 expanded nondiscrimination protections for federal contractors to include sexual orientation and gender identity (Executive Order 13672). His administration also popularized discussions of implicit bias in law enforcement and public policy, though evidence on the impact of bias training remains mixed.
The murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020, recorded on video and shared globally, triggered widespread protests during the Covid-19 pandemic. The event prompted what was widely described as a national reckoning on systemic racism. Corporations, schools, nonprofits, and government entities issued statements, pledged funds, and launched anti-racism or equity initiatives. At the same time, critics characterized some corporate DEI programs as performative or ideological.
By 2021, the largest US companies had pledged up to $200 billion toward racial equity goals, although subsequent investigations found that fulfillment has been limited in scope and hard to track. In 2022, the 50th anniversary of Title IX spurred research showing that the landmark gender-equity law had produced significant gains, although the benefits were distributed unevenly—often favoring white women. Similar findings arose regarding corporate DEI outcomes. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled race-conscious affirmative-action programs in college admissions unconstitutional. Conservative activists subsequently challenged corporate and law-firm DEI programs.
In January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Orders 14173, 14168, and 14151:
- 14173 barred federal contractors from using DEI programs deemed “illegal” and empowered the attorney general to pursue restrictions in the private sector.
- 14168 redefined sex as male or female and an “immutable biological classification,” limiting protections for transgender individuals.
- 14151 ordered the termination of DEI offices, programs, and roles within federal agencies.
The administration also directed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to stop enforcing Executive Order 11246 (issued initially by President Lyndon B. Johnson), which had prohibited federal contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or national origin.
Guidance for usage
Because the term “DEI” is now politically charged and often misapplied, journalists and researchers should use it with precision and context. When possible, describe initiatives using their specific goals (“equal access,” “civil rights compliance,” “expanding candidate pools”) rather than relying solely on the acronym.
When covering opposition to DEI, clearly indicate the basis of critics’ objections and avoid framing one side’s opinion as fact. If sources express resentment, anxiety about social change, or beliefs rooted in stereotypes, it can be helpful to reflect statements for clarification (“What I’m hearing is…”), followed by fact-based questions (“What evidence supports that?” “When did you form that view?”). This approach surfaces reasoning without validating bias.
If quoting misleading or false claims, immediately pair them with verified facts to prevent misinformation. Public documents, press releases, and institutional records can reveal how organizations’ DEI positions have shifted (for example, comparing 2020 pledges with 2025 actions).
Given that “DEI” has also been used to justify defunding programs or disciplining individuals, journalists should confirm whether a source or organization actually identifies its work as DEI before applying the term. In some cases, anonymity may be necessary for sources to speak candidly. At the same time, avoiding the term entirely can obscure the historical and social realities it represents. Reporting on DEI accurately — through careful language, context, and evidence — preserves accountability and ensures that the ongoing story of equity in the United States is told fully and factually.
Additional resources:
- Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions (enter DEI in the search box) (Just Security)
- Our Separate & Unequal Public Colleges (Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy)
- 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, New Research Shows Rise in School Segregation (Stanford Graduate School of Education)
- Developing scientifically validated bias and diversity trainings that work (Management Decision)
- Diversity Training Goals, Limitations, and Promise: A Review of the Multidisciplinary Literature (Annual Review of Psychology)
- These 30 companies rolled back DEI policies (Arizona Republic)
- How Trump upended 60 years of civil rights in two months (The New York Times)
Summary
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is a framework rooted in civil rights movements of the 1960s and formalized in the 1980s and 1990s to counter discrimination and bias; diversify the population working for, participating in, and well-served by various institutions; and create genuine equity and inclusion both within those environments and as a result of their activities and offerings. Over time, the scope of DEI came to include a broad range of communities and values. While skeptics and outright opponents to the DEI framework have long existed across the political spectrum, in the 2020s, a primarily conservative movement began to vilify, dismantle, and — by 2025 — criminalize DEI. When reporting on DEI, specific language that reflects the precise goals or values in question can provide necessary clarity, and it is often wise to ask sources directly if it would be accurate to use DEI to describe their work.