Trump’s Anticipated Reversal of DEI Initiatives Can’t Arrive Soon Enough

The country is keenly anticipating President-elect Donald Trump’s initial challenge to the numerous DEI policies, initiatives, and laws that have divided Americans over the past decade.

As he enters his second term, Trump will possess ample political capital, supported by a willing Congress and a crucially appointed federal judiciary, to forge a long-awaited transformative strategy addressing the nation’s racial and governance issues.

Now, Trump and Congress can reclaim, through executive orders, litigation, and legislation, the colorblind legal principles that unite us as a diverse, multi-racial and multi-ethnic society.

This is a critical time that demands comprehensive action across significant sectors, particularly in education, employment, and disparate-impact liability.

In education, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard declared affirmative action policies in higher education unlawful, yet some prestigious institutions seem to be evading compliance.

Universities that once claimed they couldn’t maintain diversity without explicitly considering race—such as Princeton, Yale, and Duke—are now announcing remarkably consistent racial demographics.

Notably, they are silent on how this is possible, highlighting the necessity for robust federal oversight regarding the new admission policies of the country’s most competitive higher education institutions.

Additionally, by leveraging Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which mandates that federal agencies ensure non-discrimination in federally funded programs, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services could bar universities from requiring diversity statements in hiring and promotions.

These statements frequently act as substitute metrics for racial classifications, undermining merit-based evaluations.

This section of law, along with other regulations, should compel all universities to report standardized test scores for applicants and admitted students categorized by race to scrutinize potential manipulation and misrepresentation by admissions offices.

Moreover, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights ought to investigate universities that added diversity essay requirements or adopted distorted proxies for race following the SFFA ruling.

For those institutions egregiously violating these rules, the IRS could revoke their tax-exempt status, as demonstrated by the precedent set in Bob Jones University v. United States.

While higher education is undeniably important, the new administration should also scrutinize race-based changes to admissions policies and curricula in K–12 education.

There have been too many instances where high-achieving secondary school students are penalized to achieve racial proportionality, particularly in gifted and talented magnet schools.

The DOE’s Office for Civil Rights should focus on schools that have eliminated advanced courses due to racial disparities, ensuring that high-performing students have access to such opportunities.

The administration should swiftly overturn Biden-era directives that extend disparate-impact liability to school discipline policies.

This would restore decision-making power to local educators, enhancing school safety while minimizing excessive federal interference.

The recent election results affirm that the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies embraced by numerous corporations, cultural institutions, and governmental bodies are widely unpopular and mostly unlawful.

Americans desire a return to simple individual meritocracy—the principle that ensures a level playing field for all citizens.

In pursuit of this goal, the DOJ should initiate lawsuits against employers and unions that enforce race-based hiring, promotions, layoffs, and salary disparities, and reevaluate previous legal orders imposing race-conscious hiring quotas.

Ultimately, disparate-impact liability has been misused to justify race-conscious policies under the pretext of preventing discrimination, often penalizing innocent, race-neutral practices that yield unequal outcomes, regardless of intention.

To rectify this, the new White House should restore Trump-era Fair Housing Act regulations that could limit broad interpretations of disparate impact.

The Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval left unresolved questions regarding the permissibility of disparate-impact claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Revoking current regulations would realign federal policy with a more stringent interpretation of the law.

The DOJ and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should also cease lawsuits challenging objective hiring practices, including criminal background checks and standardized testing.

Additionally, regulatory bodies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission should explicitly reject disparate-impact liability in their enforcement of laws against unfair practices.

Trump’s second term represents a unique chance to recalibrate America’s discourse on race and ethnicity.

By advocating for colorblind policies and holding institutions accountable, the administration and Congress can restore public confidence in fairness and meritocracy.

Let’s hope they prioritize this agenda.

Edward Blum is the founder and president of Students for Fair Admissions and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.