Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce

Background

Before its revocation, Biden's executive order aimed to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within the federal workforce. It had significant effects on regulatory frameworks, as agencies were required to integrate these principles into their strategic planning and human resource practices. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), for instance, led efforts to develop policies to eliminate barriers and promote a more inclusive environment. These changes were intended to ensure that recruitment, hiring, promotions, and professional development opportunities were accessible to all segments of society, particularly underserved communities. Federal agencies saw an alignment of strategies with merit system principles, focusing on fair treatment and equal opportunities.

Operational adjustments included the establishment of a Government-Wide Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Strategic Plan. This mandate guided agencies in redefining their approaches to employee management, performance reviews, and training programs. Agencies regularly reported progress and were held accountable for implementing these strategic plans. The plan outlined standards for success and required agencies to assess potential barriers to inclusivity, fostering environments that valued diverse perspectives and backgrounds. The plan also emphasized advancing equity for various groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals and people with disabilities, thereby tailoring policies to address specific needs and challenges faced by these communities.

The executive order also spurred various administrative actions, such as the promotion of paid internships and enhanced training programs aimed at raising awareness and reducing biases. Resources and staffing allocations were directed toward these initiatives, with agencies establishing roles like chief diversity officers to oversee efforts. This shift marked a concerted effort to bridge employment gaps and ensure representation of all demographics in federal employment. By actively engaging with educational and community institutions, agencies sought to improve the federal employment pipeline, targeting schools and organizations serving historically underrepresented groups.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of Biden's executive order by Donald Trump on January 20th, 2025, represented a significant ideological shift in federal workforce policy. This action was part of a broader rollback of progressive measures aimed at promoting diversity and inclusion across federal agencies. Trump's decision reflected a return to governance that prioritizes traditional merit-based hiring practices over systemic changes to rectify imbalances in representation and equity. This revocation aligned with the ideological stance that perceives such systemic efforts as overreach or unnecessary governmental intervention.

Trump's administration viewed the previous diversity initiatives as potentially burdensome to administrative processes, arguing that a focus on identity and equity might overshadow merit and performance in federal hiring and operations. The administration's priorities appeared centered on reducing regulatory complexities and emphasizing individual qualifications without specific mandates on increasing diversity. This perspective is aligned with those who argue that the federal government should remain colorblind and gender-neutral, providing equal opportunity through a meritocratic framework without considering systemic disparities.

The broader context for Trump's revocation can also be seen as a reaction against what some perceive as the politicization of identity in government functions. By repealing these mandates, the administration signaled a preference for policies that do not explicitly promote diversity and inclusion strategies—arguing instead for neutrality and equity through a "one-size-fits-all" approach. This approach suggests a belief that emphasizing diversity as a standalone goal could lead to divisive or preferential practices.

In addition to ideological reasons, political motivations may also have played a role, as undoing the previous administration's policies often serves to strengthen support among a particular voter base. Repealing the executive order allowed the return to policies more closely aligned with the traditional values upheld by Trump's supporters, who might view extensive equity measures as symbolically and practically contrary to their principles.

Winners

The revocation of diversity and inclusion mandates potentially benefits certain corporations and industries that prefer less regulatory oversight regarding their employment practices. Organizations that emphasize operational efficiency and cost-cutting measures might find relief in the reduced need for compliance with burdensome diversity reporting requirements. This change may appeal to companies that prioritize hiring speed and cost-effectiveness over initiatives that require additional administrative layers or investments in training and recruitment for diversity.

From a demographic perspective, groups that oppose affirmative action-like measures may view this revocation as a win. Individuals who believe in absolute meritocracy, without consideration for the systemic inequities involved in hiring practices, may feel vindicated by the removal of federal mandates perceived as preferential treatment based on identity or background. These groups argue that employment should focus solely on capabilities and competencies.

The revocation might also align with the interests of political factions and think tanks advocating for reduced government intervention in private and governmental affairs. These entities often champion free-market principles and minimal regulatory interference, suggesting that industries and organizations can self-regulate to meet diversity and inclusion objectives without government mandates. By reducing such directives, they posit a freer marketplace where competition naturally yields merit-based opportunities.

Losers

The groups most likely to be negatively affected by the revocation include communities that have historically faced barriers to equitable employment opportunities. This includes people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and persons with disabilities, who might see fewer institutional supports and fewer proactive measures designed to foster inclusion in the federal workforce. The executives' original intent was to counteract systemic disadvantages—a mission that becomes increasingly challenging without formal structural support.

Federal employees who benefited from inclusive policies and support services may find their workplace environments less accommodating. The removal of certain initiatives, such as those promoting gender-affirming benefits or improved accessibility measures, could lead to a reduction in workplace satisfaction and the overall inclusiveness felt by traditionally underserved groups. This revocation could diminish federal employment's attractiveness and accessibility for those seeking a supportive and equitable workplace.

Furthermore, specific industries dependent on a diverse range of skills and perspectives to drive innovation and growth may encounter challenges. Industries like technology and national security, which benefit from a range of viewpoints and experiences, risk losing the diversity of thought that strengthens problem-solving and creativity. Federal agencies that previously mirrored societal diversity might see a rollback to less representative workforces, thereby limiting perspectives necessary to address complex global and domestic challenges effectively.