TRUMP’S PLAN TO ERASE DEI:

WHY IT’S BAD FOR BUSINESS, WORSE FOR AMERICA—AND WHY OREGON SHOULD FIGHT BACK

BY FAWN ABERSON PHOTO CREDIT: FLOSSIN STAFF

Trump's endorsement of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025—a conservative plan to overhaul the federal government— signals a profound and dangerous shift. Central to this agenda is dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with far-reaching consequences. Whether this move aims to end DEI or rally a reactionary base, the impact is serious.

Project 2025 frames DEI as discriminatory, labeling it statesanctioned racism. Critics claim it undermines meritocracy, yet studies from McKinsey & Company and Harvard Business Review show that organizations with diverse leadership and inclusive policies financially outperform peers and drive innovation. Eliminating DEI could hinder economic growth, reduce workplace productivity, and limit opportunities for marginalized groups.

The plan seeks to strip diversity requirements from federal contracts, ban critical race theory training, and halt workforce diversity data collection. Trump's executive order, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," mandates shutting down all DEI policies in federal agencies. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), threatens to pull federal funding from states that don't comply. The strategy? Starve DEI into irrelevance.

DEI expert Dr. James Mason, President at Organizational Cultural Competence Assessment and Training, calls these moves political theater. “This administration isn’t threatened by DEI; they’re using it to instill fear,” he explains. “If you look at who benefits most from DEI, it’s women—particularly white women—who have been the biggest beneficiaries. But the big boogeyman in the story is always Black people.”

Trump reinforced his stance: “DEI is nothing but a radical scam. We are putting an end to the woke policies that have weakened America.” Musk piled on: “Merit should be the only factor in hiring decisions. DEI is just another form of discrimination in disguise.”

Defenders argue that the so-called “meritocracy” ignores systemic barriers—bias in hiring, unequal access to education, and entrenched networks that favor the privileged. Studies reveal identical resumes with names perceived as Black or Latino receive fewer callbacks than those with traditionally white names.

Post-2020, corporations pledged billions to DEI, only to later retract those commitments—not because DEI failed, but because structural change was never the priority. These missteps gave conservatives an easy target, allowing them to frame diversity hiring as “reverse discrimination” while ignoring the reality: diverse teams outperform homogeneous ones, and equitable hiring ensures talent—not privilege— dictates success.

The myth of the “diversity hire” dismisses underrepresented professionals, reducing their achievements to quotas. Yet legacy admissions, corporate nepotism, and exclusive networks have long given unqualified candidates from privileged backgrounds an unfair advantage.

Trump’s rollback of DEI isn’t about fairness—it’s about maintaining power structures. Instead of banning DEI outright, conservatives are slowchoking it—cutting funding, stalling initiatives, and drowning agencies in red tape. “They’re not going to kill DEI outright,” an Oregon policy advisor said. “They’ll make it so hard to implement that people give up.”

Oregon’s Reality Check

While Washington moves to erase DEI, Oregon faces its own reckoning. A recent state-commissioned study reveals that while DEI is widely acknowledged, actual investments have failed to match the rhetoric. Systemic disparities persist—especially in state contracting. The numbers don’t lie:

Black-owned businesses received just 0.1% of $3.2 billion in state contracts, despite making up 0.5% of available firms.

Asian American-owned businesses (8.3% market availability) secured only 0.4% of contract dollars.

Hispanic-owned businesses (5.1% availability) saw just 2.0% of the funds.

White woman-owned businesses (18.6% market availability) landed only 6.6% of state spending.

DEI isn’t about political correctness— it’s about economic fairness. Dr. Mason sums it up: “We focused too much on the ‘what’ of DEI and not the ‘why.’ DEI isn’t just about hiring— it’s about innovation, retention, and economic competitiveness.”

He also emphasizes that companies maintaining DEI aren’t just making a statement—they’re securing their future. He warns that those who abandon it risk falling behind in talent acquisition, consumer engagement, and global competitiveness. Even corporations that have scaled back DEI efforts, like Target, will eventually have to adapt, because the workforce and customer base are shifting. Businesses that fail to reflect that reality will struggle to stay relevant.

For Oregon, DEI isn’t just a social initiative—it’s an economic strategy that could define the state’s competitiveness. To stay ahead, Oregon must move beyond performative gestures and embed diversity, equity, and inclusion into its core economic framework. This means building stronger talent pipelines to connect businesses with a diverse workforce, expanding small business access to government contracts to level the playing field, and closing wage gaps to increase homeownership and financial stability.

Cities like Portland, Beaverton, and Eugene have the opportunity to lead by integrating DEI into hiring, procurement, and business development policies. Public-private partnerships and local funding can sustain these efforts even as federal support diminishes, ensuring longterm impact.

Legislation like Oregon’s Senate Bill 569 (SB 569) marks a step in the right direction. By tracking contract applications by race and gender and funding digital literacy programs to help minority-owned businesses navigate procurement, the state can begin dismantling systemic barriers that have long hindered equitable access to economic opportunities.

If Oregon fully commits to the best principles of DEI as an economic driver, the benefits will extend beyond equity—it will spark innovation, fuel business growth, and create a stronger, more competitive economy for all.

The Future of DEI: Performance or Policy?

Trump’s war on DEI isn’t about policy—it’s about performance. He’s feeding his base the illusion of dismantling “wokeness” while ignoring the economic consequences of shutting out diverse talent and businesses.

Will DEI decline? Dr. Mason doesn’t think so. “The question isn’t whether DEI continues. The question is whether we let the political circus define what it is, or whether we take control of its future.” DEI is evidencebased—not a trend. Companies with diverse teams consistently outperform those without because broader perspectives lead to better problemsolving and innovation.

As some states move to dismantle DEI, Oregon should fight back—not just for the sake of equity, but because it’s good for business and essential for America’s future.