Washington Faces Trump’s Merit Test

Hand on a book with gavel and Lady Justice statue — Photo: Tolikoff Photography / Shutterstock

President Trump’s sweeping orders to kill federal DEI programs have quietly turned into a nationwide test of who really benefits when Washington says it is “restoring merit.”

Story Snapshot

Trump signed multiple executive orders in 2025 and 2026 that order federal agencies to terminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and remove DEI language from hiring, contracting, and grants.
Supporters say these orders stop illegal racial and sex preferences and force the government and its contractors to focus again on skills, safety, and merit-based opportunity.
Critics argue the same orders tear down civil-rights and accessibility work, weaken protections for minorities and women, and threaten long-term equal opportunity in federal jobs and contracts.
The fight over DEI has moved into courts and workplaces, deepening public distrust of a federal system many already see as serving elites while everyday workers struggle.

Trump’s Orders Aim to End Federal DEI and Restore Merit Rules

In January 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders that directly target diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the federal government. One key order, Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” tells the Office of Management and Budget to coordinate the termination of all programs it labels as illegal DEI or accessibility efforts. A companion order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” requires agencies to scrap DEI preferences and focus on merit in hiring and promotions.

These orders go beyond internal staffing and reach into the private sector through federal contracts and grants. Agencies are told to remove DEI and accessibility language “under whatever name they appear” from contracting and assistance rules, and to rescind older executive orders that supported affirmative action and workplace diversity. Legal analysts note that the orders set a clear federal policy that recognizes only two genders and sharply limits any use of race or sex in employment decisions tied to government money. For many workers, this means the ground under long-standing equal-opportunity programs has shifted almost overnight.

Supporters See a Crackdown on ‘Illegal’ Preferences and Bureaucratic Waste

Supporters of the new policy, especially many conservatives, frame Trump’s anti-DEI orders as a long-awaited move to stop what they call “reverse discrimination” and ideological training. The White House argues that taxpayer dollars should go to core missions like safety and service, not to programs it describes as radical, wasteful, or discriminatory. Business and legal commentaries point out that federal contractors must now certify they do not run “illegal” DEI programs and instead rely on neutral, job-related criteria. Backers say this shift protects workers who feel they were judged by their identity, not their skills.

Some corporate governance experts add that the orders may simplify compliance by removing complex diversity scoring and reporting rules from federal contracts. They say clearer standards can help smaller firms compete for government work without hiring costly consultants to navigate changing DEI expectations. For Americans worried about bloated bureaucracy and elite rulemaking, these orders can look like a direct attack on a layer of programs they view as politicized, expensive, and out of touch with everyday workplace needs. Supporters believe that if the rules are enforced fairly, more people will trust that promotions and contracts are based on performance.

Critics Warn of Damage to Civil-Rights, Accessibility, and Equal Opportunity

Civil-rights groups, social workers, and many liberal commentators say the same orders are not just trimming excess but ripping out vital protections for marginalized communities. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that Trump’s actions roll back diversity and accessibility efforts that helped disabled workers, LGBTQ people, and racial minorities find fair treatment in federal jobs and services. A lawsuit led by the National Urban League claims the orders target recognition of transgender people and dismantle equity infrastructure that supported fair access to public programs. Critics fear the language against DEI will chill even lawful outreach and inclusion work.

Reports from policy groups note that the orders direct agencies to terminate diversity offices, equity-related grants, and affirmative action programs that had existed under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Commentators warn that ending these tools while also weakening older equal-employment rules may widen gaps between the “haves and have-nots” in federal hiring and contracting, especially in communities that already face bias. For many on the left, this fight looks like another step in a broader pattern where elites in Washington promise fairness while removing the very systems designed to track and fix discrimination. They question whether “merit” can be trusted when historical barriers are ignored.

Real-World Impact: Confusion, Litigation, and Growing Public Distrust

Legal and employment experts say the most certain effects so far are the orders themselves and their instructions, not yet clear changes in hiring or pay numbers. Agencies and contractors are still rewriting policies, and court challenges will likely decide how far the anti-DEI language can go without violating civil-rights laws. Many workplaces now face confusion as managers try to stay legal while also responding to workers who either welcome or fear the rollback. Human-resources teams must track shifting federal guidance while explaining to staff why long-standing diversity programs have been shut down or renamed.

For everyday Americans watching from outside Washington, this battle over DEI fits a larger story of frustration with the federal government. Conservatives who felt “woke” agendas ignored merit now see a victory, but wonder if elites will simply rebuild similar programs under new names. Liberals who counted on DEI offices to push fair treatment fear the orders will worsen discrimination while politicians claim success. Both sides share a deeper concern: that the people writing these rules are more focused on power fights than on making it easier for ordinary citizens to build a decent life through honest work.