President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday to eliminate federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, citing their inefficiency and costliness. Trump ends federal DEI programs has ignited debate across political and cultural spheres, with proponents praising the rollback and critics warning of potential harm to marginalized groups and federal contracting protections.
During Thursday’s episode of The View, co-host Sara Haines argued that DEI initiatives have become “a bureaucracy of money suck” without yielding measurable results. Haines referenced the University of Michigan’s $85 million DEI investment, which critics, including the school’s Black Student Union, have called ineffective. Fellow co-host Sunny Hostin countered that DEI programs are essential for preventing discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity.
Haines also criticized legacy admissions at colleges, calling for their elimination alongside DEI programs to promote true equality. Hostin maintained that eliminating DEI in government contracting could harm women and minority-owned businesses.
Trump’s order requires federal agencies to inventory their DEI offices, employees, and contracts by Thursday and submit plans to reduce DEI-related personnel and operations by Friday. The Federal Communications Commission, under Brendan Carr, whom Trump selected as chairman, announced plans to exclude DEI from its strategic plan and budget.
The order reverses former President Joe Biden’s 2021 initiative to promote DEI in the federal workforce and federal contracting. Companies like Walmart and Boeing have recently scaled back DEI programs amid consumer backlash, reflecting shifting attitudes.
In anticipation of Trump’s policies, investment advisers warned major corporations in November that their DEI initiatives could pose financial and legal risks. Trump’s administration is prioritizing efficiency and fairness over what it views as ideological programs.
Supporters argue that eliminating DEI programs restores merit-based opportunities and fiscal responsibility. Critics contend it may dismantle safeguards designed to promote inclusivity in federal operations and beyond.
