On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in federal government operations. As part of this order, all DEI employees are to be placed on paid administrative leave, effective immediately.

The White House confirmed that federal DEI workers must be on leave by 5:00 p.m. EST (10:00 p.m. GMT) the following day. Afterward, the offices and programs they manage will be shut down. Trump’s executive order labeled these initiatives as “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral,” signaling a sharp departure from previous policies.

Immediate Impact and Controversy

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 800,000 federal workers, has expressed concerns about how many employees this order will affect. Since his inauguration, President Trump has acted swiftly on major campaign promises, including his pledge to create a “color-blind, merit-based” society, outlined in his inaugural address.

A separate executive order mandates the termination of all DEI offices, positions, and programs within 60 days. DEI initiatives, which aim to improve workplace diversity and address systemic discrimination, have been praised for reducing inequities. However, critics argue that such efforts can promote reverse discrimination.

On Tuesday, the US Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to federal agencies, instructing them to place DEI staff on leave and prepare plans for layoffs. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the memo’s authenticity. Federal agencies are required to submit a written plan for layoffs by the end of the month.

Legal and Sector Implications

Trump’s executive order framed DEI and DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) policies as “illegal” and in conflict with civil rights laws. The order emphasizes rewarding individual merit in federal hiring, promotions, and performance evaluations rather than considering DEI factors. It also directs the attorney general to develop recommendations for discouraging private-sector diversity efforts within 120 days.

Additionally, the order repeals a civil rights-era executive order from President Lyndon B. Johnson, which prohibited federal contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This rule, later expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity, had been foundational to workplace diversity standards. Critics warn that revoking it could weaken protections and diversity efforts across public and private sectors.

Alvin Tillery, a political scientist and DEI trainer, expressed concerns about potential ripple effects. Companies could theoretically secure federal contracts without proving compliance with diversity standards. This could lead to reduced discrimination training and a lack of awareness about workplace inequality, said DC-based civil rights lawyer Les Alderman.

Reactions from Advocates and Opponents

Unions representing federal employees condemned the order. The AFGE argued that DEI programs have narrowed gender and racial pay gaps and warned that Trump’s actions could lead to politicized federal hiring practices. Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Workers, called the move an attack on nonpartisan civil servants.

Conservatives have celebrated the executive orders. Yukong Mike Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, called them “a major milestone in American civil rights progress.” Zhao argued that affirmative action and DEI policies represent “racism in disguise.”

In recent weeks, companies like McDonald’s, Walmart, and Meta have scaled back their DEI programs. Others, such as Apple and Costco, continue to defend their initiatives. Alvin Tillery criticized the Biden administration’s DEI efforts as underfunded and poorly resourced, but he lamented the potential loss of progress. “Now we’re going to go to zero,” he said.

The debate over DEI policies remains a polarizing issue in both the public and private sectors, with far-reaching implications for workplace diversity and civil rights protections.