Advancing Equity, Justice, and Opportunity for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders

Background

The Executive Order issued by President Joseph Biden had a substantial impact on various aspects of governance and social policy. Primarily, it established both the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. These bodies were tasked with advancing equity and opportunity for these communities. Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services played a central role in leading the implementation efforts, which included augmenting data collection processes to properly reflect demographic diversity and disaggregation. This initiative intended to dismantle the “model minority” myth and provide visibility to the varied experiences within these communities.

The executive order further directed federal agencies to adjust their operational practices to foster inclusion and combat discrimination. This involved enhancing language access services to ensure broader participation in federal programs, potentially shaping a regulatory landscape more responsive to the needs of non-English-speaking individuals. Additionally, it required agencies to re-evaluate their grant-making and employment practices, promoting equitable resource distribution and employment opportunities. By advocating for policy adjustments, the order aimed to bridge socioeconomic and health disparities that plagued these groups, particularly in light of the heightened challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moreover, the order focused substantial effort on combating the rising anti-Asian violence exacerbated during the pandemic. It aimed to strengthen reporting, responding, and tracking measures for anti-Asian hate crimes. Through these initiatives, the administration sought to foster a nationwide climate of safety and acceptance. While these measures did not demand direct changes via rule-making, they informed the strategic priorities of involved agencies and set an enforcement tone that aligned with advancing racial and social justice. Collectively, these components positioned the order as a cornerstone in the Biden administration's broader equity agenda.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this executive order by President Donald Trump likely reflects a broader ideological shift within his administration, focusing less on identity-based initiatives. The Trump administration has historically prioritized deregulation and reducing what it perceives as government overreach. The action to revoke the executive order could signify a return to a “colorblind” policy framework, emphasizing universal approaches over targeted ones tailored for specific ethnic communities, which some conservative circles argue perpetuates division.

Under this ideological lens, government initiatives explicitly focusing on racial or ethnic equity may be viewed with skepticism as they may conflict with values placed on individualism and self-determination. Revoking the executive order could be a move to reinforce a governance style that prioritizes economic considerations, deregulation, and limiting government intervention in specific identity-based issues. This perspective suggests a preference for market-based solutions rather than federal oversight to address disparities.

The timing of this action also coincides with a broader ideological recalibration within the Republican Party, focusing on issues of immigration and national identity. Trump's revocation can be seen as part of a consistent thematic approach that underscores his attempts to appeal to a core political base that is wary of diversity-focused policies, preferring a singular, unified American identity. This political maneuver might have been calculated to reassert these ideological pillars prominently at the onset of his subsequent term.

Furthermore, Trump’s decision might reflect a reaction against perceived partisan initiatives of the previous administration, which may have been perceived as favoring particular groups over others. The ideological shift embodies a response against what the administration views as preferential treatment based on ethnicity, aiming instead for policies perceived as more neutral and universally applicable, though critics may argue this sidesteps persistent disparities that merit targeted interventions.

Winners

The revocation of the order may benefit groups and sectors that perceive ethnic-focused regulations as burdensome. By rolling back these measures, industries such as retail or hospitality might gain operational flexibility by not being required to conform to additional compliance targets intended for equity purposes. Businesses that prefer uniform regulatory frameworks might see this move as a favorable reduction of administrative pressures related to data disaggregation and equitable practices.

Further, conservative think tanks and advocacy groups that champion a reduction in identity-focused government initiatives may also emerge as beneficiaries. This policy shift serves to strengthen their arguments against race or ethnicity-based policy measures, affording them a concrete victory that aligns with their lobbying goals. The alignment of federal policies with a universal framework centered on economic measures rather than sociocultural factors might strengthen their influence in policy circles.

In the corporate sector, firms that focus on cost efficiency may view the removal of the experimental initiatives focused on language access services and diversity training as a liberation from compulsory obligations that could divert resources from core business activities. Particularly, multinationals with less emphasis on the U.S. market in their profit strategies might prefer a homogeneous policy schema that alleviates varying compliance landscapes across different jurisdictions.

Losers

The termination of these initiatives is likely to have adverse effects on Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities, who were set to benefit directly from targeted government support. Especially vulnerable are small businesses owned by these demographics, which might face renewed challenges without federal efforts aimed at enhancing economic opportunities and grants tailored towards minority business owners.

Advocacy groups and organizations focused on racial equality and anti-discrimination are likely to perceive this revocation as a significant setback. The withdrawal of federal strategies specifically designed to address anti-Asian racism means decreased support for programs dedicated to reporting and addressing hate crimes, and these communities might be left to rely on state or local initiatives, which can vary significantly in scope and resource availability.

Educational institutions, particularly those within regions with a high population of AA and NHPI students, might feel the repercussions as well. By losing federal guidance geared towards addressing disparities in educational outcomes and enhanced cultural inclusion, these institutions could face hurdles in addressing bullying, harassment, and discrimination without tailored federal backing. The landscape of diversity-focused education reforms may suffer without the impetus that federal policies provide, potentially affecting the educational and personal development of students from these communities.