The new U.S. administration under Donald Trump has killed all federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and he has essentially told top private companies to do the same if they want to continue having a fruitful relationship with the government.
Such initiatives comprise many practices that aim to uplift different marginalized groups in the workplace. For example, according to CBS News, this could include a policy that accommodates working parents, such as flexible work hours, could qualify as DEI. So could establishing affinity groups based on shared identities, like sexual orientation.
With Trump’s actions, the spirit of DEI is being lost. A common misconception about DEI is that it stands in opposition to meritocracy, as if prioritizing DEI somehow compromises the pursuit of excellence.
In reality, DEI and meritocracy are not competing ideas—they are complementary. A true meritocracy can only function when there is an inclusive system in place to ensure that talent is recognized and rewarded based on ability, not constrained by bias or systemic barriers.
Furthermore, DEI is seen many commentators as the foundation of a democratic society, providing fair treatment and full participation in civil society.
Sara Gutierrez, Chief Science Officer at SHL, a talent acquisition and management platform, who leads many DEI initiatives at SHL believes that DEI actually leads to better and more productive teams:
Gutierrez explains the benefits: “Unfortunately, in recent years, DEI has become a loaded term—misunderstood and misrepresented in ways that stray from its true purpose. Instead of being seen as a framework for creating stronger, more effective teams by broadening access to talent and perspectives, it has too often been framed as a zero-sum game or a box-checking exercise.”
In terms of the basis of many programmes, Gutierrez says: “DEI initiatives, at their core, are about expanding access to opportunities so that the best individuals—regardless of background—have the chance to contribute at the highest level. It ensures that hiring, promotions, and leadership decisions are based on capability and potential, not just familiarity or traditional pipelines that may unintentionally exclude high-caliber talent.”
In terms of best practice examples, Gutierrez cites: “When organizations embrace DEI in this way, they actually strengthen meritocracy. By bringing in diverse perspectives, skill sets, and ways of thinking, they widen the talent pool and create an environment where the best ideas win. In contrast, a rigid, exclusionary system that claims to be meritocratic but overlooks capable individuals due to unconscious bias or structural barriers is not a true meritocracy at all—it’s just reinforcing the status quo.”
Gutierrez is of the view that when we strip away the Trump-Musk nexus of noise, DEI is simply about building the strongest teams by recognizing that excellence comes in many forms. It’s not about choosing one group over another, but rather about creating the conditions where the most capable individuals, regardless of background, have the opportunity to contribute at the highest level.
Gutierrez argues that if we shift the conversation back to that reality, DEI stops being a divisive term and returns to what it truly is: a commitment to fairness, opportunity, and performance.
