Trump says he "ended DEI." Courts disagree

"DEI policies are intentionally broad to repair decades of discrimination, but the administration has declined to define what it considers illegal while warning of severe consequences, creating a chilling effect. Institutions often "anticipatorily comply," eliminating programs, positions and offices to avoid scrutiny. By leaving the term as an undefined "boogeyman," the administration has been able to "kill" lawful DEI efforts that otherwise might not withstand court challenges."

"The Education Department issued a Valentine's Day 2025 "Dear Colleague" letter directing schools to roll back DEI policies, citing the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling and warning that race-based efforts tied to diversity or equity are illegal. Some schools responded by canceling affinity events and scaling back diversity programs, but courts have since blocked parts of the policy, and uncertainty over what's allowed persists."

"A federal judge ordered the government to restore a Philadelphia slavery exhibit it had taken down, determining the administration cannot "disassemble historical truths." This judicial intervention reflects broader challenges to the administration's approach across education, environmental, and employment sectors."

The Trump administration's approach to DEI policies lacks clear legal definitions, creating uncertainty that prompts institutions to preemptively eliminate diversity programs to avoid scrutiny. This strategy, described as using DEI as a sword rather than a shield, allows the administration to effectively eliminate lawful efforts that might survive legal challenges. Courts have begun intervening across multiple sectors, blocking parts of Education Department directives targeting race-based diversity initiatives and ordering restoration of historical exhibits the administration removed. Despite the administration's declaration that DEI is dead, judicial decisions indicate that lawful diversity and equity efforts retain legal protection, leaving institutions uncertain about what remains permissible.

Read at Axios