Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Explained

What Is DEI

The programs under the label range from a disability accommodation to a mentoring program to how a job is advertised, and the law treats them differently. To see what the bans reach, start with where the programs came from.

Where DEI Came From and Why

Programs now grouped as DEI built on the civil rights laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned employment discrimination, and Title IX opened education to women in 1972. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act required accommodation for disabled people.

Employers and schools added recruiting, mentoring, accommodation offices and promotion reviews aimed at the groups those laws protect, and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” became the umbrella term for that work. The record is mixed. The largest review of diversity training, covered below, found smaller effects on behavior than on what people learned.

What DEI Does

DEI turns on one distinction, between equity and equality.

Equality means giving everyone the same thing. The same packet, the same rules, the same starting line.

Equity means adjusting the support so people who begin in different places can reach the same access. The aim is a fair outcome, not identical inputs.

The difference is easy to see at work. Equal treatment hands every new hire the same onboarding packet. Equitable treatment adds assistive technology for a worker who is blind, translated materials for an immigrant, or extra training for someone the old system left unprepared. Each person gets what they need to do the job.

None of these practices requires a quota. A program that reserves a slot or a benefit by race or sex is the kind the EEOC treats as unlawful, as the legal section below explains.

Who Benefits From DEI Programs

Diversity, equity & inclusion work is built around the same protected characteristics that equal opportunity law recognizes, and the list is longer than race.

The federal order reached past race by its own terms. Executive Order 14151 covers DEI and also DEIA, the federal term that adds accessibility. It applies to those programs “under whatever name they appear,” and it told agencies to list their DEI programs and services and to assess whether any had been “misleadingly relabeled” to keep their old function (Federal Register). Disability accommodations are still required by the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, whatever office handles them.

Is DEI Legal?

DEI is legal as a label, and illegal when it hands out a job, a slot, or a benefit by race or sex. No federal law bans diversity, equity, and inclusion by name. The EEOC said so in a question-and-answer guide it released on March 19, 2025, alongside a shorter document it issued jointly with the Justice Department. DEI, it wrote, “is a broad term that is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The line the EEOC draws is the one Title VII has always drawn. A DEI program “may be unlawful” when an employer takes an action motivated “in whole or in part” by a worker’s race, sex, or another protected trait (EEOC). The guidance lists where that happens. It names mentoring, internships, and leadership training open to only one group, candidate slates built by race or sex, and employee resource groups that limit who can join.

The guidance points employers to the lawful version. They should offer “training and mentoring that provides workers of all backgrounds the opportunity, skill, experience, and information necessary to perform well.” Federal disability law still requires accommodations.

Colleges, states, and employers that take federal money got a second set of warnings in July 2025. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s memo to every federal agency calls it unlawful to use race or sex to decide who gets a program or benefit, “except in rare cases” (Justice Department). It also warns that neutral criteria like “cultural competence” and “lived experience” can break the law when they are used as stand-ins for race. The memo calls its own best practices “non-binding.”

The biggest court fight so far turned on how the orders were written, not on whether any one program was legal. On February 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated an injunction that had blocked parts of President Trump’s two DEI orders, in a case brought by diversity officers, professors, and the city of Baltimore. Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Pamela Harris and, except for one part, Judge Allison Rushing. In a separate concurrence, Diaz wrote that the case was “a facial challenge” to the orders, “not the legality or termination of any particular DEI program,” and described what the record showed.

The evidence “suggests a more sinister story: important programs terminated by keyword; valuable grants gutted in the dark.”

Chief Judge Albert Diaz, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, February 6, 2026

He ended with a message for “those disappointed by the outcome.” It read, “Follow the law. Continue your critical work. Keep the faith.” (Fourth Circuit opinion)

The federal actions against DEI each sit at a different legal stage. Most are in force, a court vacated one, and one is still a bill.

Where Each Federal Action on DEI Stands

As of October 14, 2026

• Executive Order 14151, ending federal DEI programs Agency action, in force

  Signed January 20, 2025. It told agencies to end, "to the maximum extent allowed by law," DEI and DEIA offices and positions and "equity-related" grants and contracts. (source)

• Executive Order 14173, the grant and contract certification Agency action, in force

  Signed January 21, 2025. Recipients must certify they run no DEI program that violates federal anti-discrimination law, under False Claims Act liability. (source)

• The lawsuit against both orders (NADOHE v. Trump) In litigation, injunction vacated

  The Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction on February 6, 2026, and sent the case back to the federal court in Maryland. (source)

• Executive Order 14398, the federal contractor order Agency action, in force

  Signed March 26, 2026. Contractors must agree not to run "racially discriminatory DEI activities" or risk losing federal contracts. (source)

• The lawsuit against the contractor order In litigation, injunction denied

  Diversity officers, the AAUP, and minority contractors sued in Maryland on April 20, 2026. On October 14, 2026, Judge Adam Abelson denied their request for a preliminary injunction and asked the parties for a joint status report within 14 days. (source)

• Affirmative action for federal contractors (Executive Order 11246) Ended

  Executive Order 14173 revoked it on January 21, 2025. The rule removing its regulations takes effect October 26, 2026. (source)

• Education Department letter against race-conscious programs Final ruling, vacated

  A federal judge in Maryland vacated the February 14, 2025 letter on August 14, 2025, and the appeals court dismissed the department's appeal at its request in January 2026. (source)

• EEOC and Justice Department guidance on DEI at work Agency action, guidance

  Released March 19, 2025, with a joint one-page document from the EEOC and the Justice Department. The EEOC says both rest on Title VII, its existing guidance, and Supreme Court precedent. (source)

• Justice Department memo to federal funding recipients Agency action, guidance

  Issued July 29, 2025. It lists practices the department considers unlawful and calls its best practices non-binding. (source)

• Federal disparate-impact enforcement (Executive Order 14281) Agency action

  Signed April 23, 2025. It told agencies to deprioritize cases over policies with unequal effects. (source)

• H.R. 1282, the Eliminate DEI in Colleges Act Proposal

  Referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee on February 13, 2025, with no action since. (source)

Source: Federal Register; Fourth Circuit opinion in NADOHE v. Trump; CourtListener docket, D. Md. 8:26-cv-01532; EEOC; Justice Department; K-12 Dive; Congress.gov bill status

The end of contractor affirmative action is covered in depth on the affirmative action page, and the disparate-impact changes on the Civil Rights Act page. What those rules mean for one person depends on where they work or study.

Find your situation

Open the one closest to yours. This is general information, not legal advice, and deadlines can differ by state.

My school or employer stopped my accommodation when it closed its DEI office

1. Ask again in writing, and ask who now handles accommodation requests. Closing an office does not end the duty to accommodate.
2. At work, file a charge with the EEOC public portal if the request is denied. You generally have 180 days, or 300 in states with their own fair-employment agency.
3. At school, file a complaint with the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, generally within 180 days.

The accommodation duty comes from the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, not from any DEI policy.

A program at work was closed to me because of my race or sex

1. Write down what happened, when, and who told you.
2. File a charge with the EEOC public portal within 180 days, or 300 in states with their own agency.

The EEOC guidance says Title VII protects every worker from DEI-related discrimination, regardless of race.

The mentoring program or scholarship I relied on is gone

1. Ask the dean of students or the financial aid office where the service or the money went. Some schools moved staff to renamed offices.
2. If a scholarship you were already awarded changed, ask for the change in writing.
3. Tell your state legislators what you lost, with dates and amounts, before the next session.

My organization has a federal grant or contract and must certify

1. Read the certification clause in your grant or contract with a lawyer before you sign it.
2. List any program that limits who can take part by race or sex, because that is what the certification covers.

The clause comes from Executive Order 14173, which makes compliance "material" to payment under the False Claims Act.

The Playbook Behind the DEI Bans

Before DEI, the label under fire was critical race theory. Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist who led that campaign, described the goal in a post on March 15, 2021.

“The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

Christopher Rufo, on X, March 15, 2021

Two years later the campaign had a template for college DEI. In 2023, the Goldwater Institute and the Manhattan Institute proposed model state legislation. In June 2023 the Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions. Under Texas’s SB 17, the UT System closed DEI offices in 2024, and a federal order ended DEI programs across the government in January 2025.

1. 2021 Rufo names the strategy He writes that the goal is for the public to "immediately think critical race theory."
2. 2023 A model bill against campus DEI The Goldwater and Manhattan Institutes propose model state legislation.
3. Jun 2023 SFFA v. Harvard The Court rules 6-2 that Harvard's race-conscious admissions "cannot be reconciled" with equal protection.
4. 2024 State bans take effect Under Texas SB 17, the UT System closes 21 DEI offices.
5. Jan 2025 Trump EO 14151 A first-day order tells agencies to end federal DEI and DEIA programs.

Sources: Christopher Rufo on X; Chronicle of Higher Education; Supreme Court; CBS Austin; Federal Register.

From the CRT Fight to DEI Bans, 2021-2025: 2021: Rufo names the strategy (He writes that the goal is for the public to "immediately think critical race theory."). 2023: A model bill against campus DEI (The Goldwater and Manhattan Institutes propose model state legislation.). Jun 2023: SFFA v. Harvard (The Court rules 6-2 that Harvard's race-conscious admissions "cannot be reconciled" with equal protection.). 2024: State bans take effect (Under Texas SB 17, the UT System closes 21 DEI offices.). Jan 2025: Trump EO 14151 (A first-day order tells agencies to end federal DEI and DEIA programs.).

2021: Rufo’s March 15, 2021 post set out the plan to make “critical race theory” a label for a wider set of ideas.

2023: The model legislation targeted four things. The Chronicle of Higher Education still tracks bills by them: DEI offices and staff, mandatory diversity training, diversity statements in hiring, and preferences by race or sex in admissions and hiring (Chronicle).

June 2023: In SFFA v. Harvard, the Supreme Court held 6-2 (6-3 in the companion UNC case) that the two schools’ admissions programs “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause” (opinion). The Education Department’s February 2025 letter against school DEI programs cited the ruling (K-12 Dive).

2024: Under SB 17, a 2023 Texas law, the UT System closed 21 DEI offices. The law bars DEI offices, mandatory DEI training and diversity statements at public universities in one statute (Texas Legislature).

January 2025: President Trump signed Executive Order 14151 on January 20, 2025, his first day in office.

Which States Banned DEI

18 states restrict DEI in public higher education, 17 by state law and 1 by executive order. North Carolina joined the list on June 24, 2026, when the legislature overrode the governor’s veto of SB 558 (North Carolina General Assembly). The Chronicle of Higher Education has tracked 153 bills since 2023, and 34 of them had become law as of July 9, 2026. The map below covers public colleges only. Restrictions on K-12 schools and state agencies follow different rules and timelines.

State DEI Restrictions in Public Higher Education

• State law (17 states)
• Governor's executive order (1 state)
• No statewide restriction

Sources: Chronicle of Higher Education; MOST Policy Initiative; CSWE; North Carolina General Assembly.

State DEI Restrictions in Public Higher Education

State	Status	Detail
Texas	State law restricts DEI	SB 17 (2024): bans DEI offices, training, and diversity statements at public universities. Among the broadest in the nation.
Utah	State law restricts DEI	Bans DEI offices in higher ed and state government employment.
Florida	State law restricts DEI	Bars state and federal funds for DEI programs at public universities.
Iowa	State law restricts DEI	Bans DEI offices at state colleges and universities.
Tennessee	State law restricts DEI	Bans implicit-bias training requirements for higher-ed employees.
Ohio	State law restricts DEI	SB 1 (2025): bans DEI offices and training at public universities.
Oklahoma	Executive order restricts DEI	Executive order abolishing DEI positions at state universities.
Alabama	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI programs and "divisive concepts" training.
Arkansas	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
Idaho	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
Indiana	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
Kansas	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
Kentucky	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
Louisiana	No statewide restriction	No state law. A 2025 ban (HB 685) passed the House 57-32 but stalled in the Senate; in February 2026 Gov. Landry asked the U.S. Education Department to widen its DEI investigation to every public college.
Mississippi	State law restricts DEI	Passed a DEI ban in 2025.
North Carolina	State law restricts DEI	SB 558 (S.L. 2026-21), "Eliminating DEI in Public Higher Ed.," became law on June 24, 2026, when the legislature overrode the governor's veto. The UNC System Board of Governors had already repealed its diversity policy.
North Dakota	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
West Virginia	State law restricts DEI	Restricts DEI offices, training, or statements in public higher education.
Wyoming	State law restricts DEI	Defunded DEI through the state budget.
Alaska	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Arizona	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
California	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Colorado	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Connecticut	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Delaware	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
District of Columbia	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Georgia	No statewide restriction	University System cut DEI through budget action, no statute.
Hawaii	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Illinois	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Maine	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Maryland	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Massachusetts	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Michigan	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Minnesota	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Missouri	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Montana	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Nebraska	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Nevada	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
New Hampshire	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
New Jersey	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
New Mexico	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
New York	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Oregon	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Pennsylvania	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Rhode Island	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
South Carolina	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
South Dakota	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Vermont	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Virginia	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Washington	No statewide restriction	No statewide law, executive order or board policy restricting DEI in public higher education.
Wisconsin	No statewide restriction	Froze DEI hiring via budget deal, no full ban.

The laws differ in reach. Texas’s SB 17 covers offices, training, and diversity statements at every public university. Utah’s 2024 law, HB 261, also reaches public schools and government employers (Utah Legislature).

The Human Cost

The bans are written about offices, and the first public count of what one closed came from Texas. In May 2024, University of Texas System Chancellor James Milliken gave a Texas Senate subcommittee the count for his campuses. SB 17 had closed 21 DEI offices, eliminated 311 full- and part-time positions, and canceled 681 “contracts, programs, and trainings” (CBS Austin). He estimated that more than $25 million would be “saved or reallocated.”

The Federal and Corporate Retreat

In January 2025, the campaign reached the federal government.

The Federal Rollback

On January 20, 2025, his first day in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, ordering agencies to end DEI offices, positions, and equity-related grants. At the Department of Veterans Affairs, the order shut down a $14 million DEI initiative. According to the VA’s website, its outreach had focused on minorities, women, LGBTQ+ veterans, people with disabilities, and religious minorities. Up to 60 VA employees whose jobs were DEI work went on paid leave (Stars and Stripes).

Companies and Their Shareholders

No federal law requires a private company to end a lawful DEI program; federal contractors face the certification and contract clauses above. Shareholders have weighed in directly. At Costco’s annual meeting on January 23, 2025, a shareholder proposal asked for a report on the risks of keeping its DEI efforts. Of the shares voted for or against it, 98.3% were against (Costco SEC filing).

Does DEI Work?

The best-known review of diversity training found real but uneven effects. A 2016 meta-analysis led by Katerina Bezrukova pooled 260 samples from more than 40 years of studies. It found the largest effects on reactions to training and on what people learned, and smaller effects on behavior and attitudes (Psychological Bulletin).

The effects on attitudes faded over time, while what people learned held steady or grew. Training did better when it ran over a significant period, built both awareness and skills, and came with other diversity efforts.

Bans on Paper vs. in Practice

What a ban says and what closes can differ, and the federal order planned for that.

Renamed Offices

Some offices were renamed rather than closed. Executive Order 14151 anticipated that, telling agencies to report whether programs had been “misleadingly relabeled in an attempt to preserve” their old function. The Justice Department’s July 2025 memo adds that neutral-sounding criteria can be unlawful when they work as stand-ins for race or sex. Services the law requires, like disability accommodation, have to continue under any name.

Government Is Not Private Business

The rules differ by employer. State laws and federal orders bind public universities and agencies directly. A private employer answers to Title VII, and to the contract clauses in Executive Orders 14173 and 14398 if it takes federal money or contracts.

Where the Bans Hit a Wall

Federal law sets the first limit. Title IX, Title VI, and the Americans with Disabilities Act still require schools and employers to prevent sex, race, and disability discrimination, to respond to harassment, and to provide accommodations. A state can ban the DEI label, but it cannot order an institution to stop doing what federal civil-rights law requires.

Procedure is a second limit. On August 14, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland vacated the Education Department’s February 2025 letter against school DEI programs, finding the department skipped the steps the Administrative Procedure Act requires before changing policy. The department dropped its appeal on January 21, 2026 (K-12 Dive). The ruling does not touch state bans, and the status list above shows the federal orders themselves still in force.

State bans can be challenged too. On October 2, 2025, Chief Judge Landya McCafferty blocked New Hampshire’s 2025 anti-DEI laws for public schools and state agencies. She found a teachers’ union, school districts and other plaintiffs “likely to succeed in arguing that this latest round of anti-DEI laws is unconstitutional” (court docket). The case is still pending; both sides have moved for summary judgment.

For institutions, the label and the legal duties come apart. The DEI title can come off the door, but harassment reporting, accommodation, and equal-access compliance are still required by federal law.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does DEI stand for?

DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is the set of practices organizations use to find and remove barriers to opportunity, through recruitment, accommodation, mentorship, training, and fairer processes.

What is a DEI hire?

“DEI hire” is a phrase critics use for someone they say got a job because of race, sex, or another trait rather than qualifications. Hiring or promoting anyone because of race or sex is already illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a line the EEOC restated in its 2025 guidance, so a job filled that way would be a legal violation rather than a lawful DEI program.

Why did Trump end federal DEI programs?

Executive Order 14151, signed January 20, 2025, says the Biden administration “forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government” and calls the agencies’ equity plans “immense public waste.” It ordered every agency to end its DEI offices, positions, and “equity-related” grants “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”

Is DEI the same as affirmative action?

No. Affirmative action usually means considering race or sex in admissions or hiring. In 2023 the Supreme Court held 6-2 that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” and Executive Order 14173 revoked the federal contractor affirmative action order, Executive Order 11246, in January 2025. DEI is a broader label that also covers accommodation, mentoring and recruiting, and the EEOC says Title VII does not define it.

Is DEI a racial quota?

No. Hiring by racial quota is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC’s 2025 guidance says a DEI program may be unlawful when race or sex motivates a job decision, even in part, so a program that reserved slots by race would break the law.

Does DEI mean hiring less-qualified people?

Not lawfully. Choosing a less-qualified person because of race or sex is discrimination under Title VII, and the EEOC’s 2025 guidance says that is true whatever the program is called. The same guidance tells employers to offer training and mentoring to “workers of all backgrounds.”

Why do companies keep DEI if it is so unpopular?

Polls and shareholder votes show support for parts of it. In a Marist poll taken January 29 to February 1, 2024, 66% of Americans supported mandatory DEI training for employees. At Costco’s January 23, 2025 annual meeting, 98.3% of the shares voted for or against a proposal asking for a report on the risks of its DEI efforts were cast against it.

If a school renames its DEI office, did the ban work?

It depends on what the renamed office still does. Executive Order 14151 told federal agencies to report programs “misleadingly relabeled” to keep their old function, and the Justice Department’s July 2025 memo warns that neutral-sounding criteria used as stand-ins for race can be unlawful. Services federal law requires, like disability accommodation, must continue under any name.

What You Can Do

1. Show up where the bans are written. Most DEI bans pass at the state level. When your legislature or university board takes up an anti-DEI bill, testify or send public comment with specifics: who in your community loses support. Find your legislators at openstates.org.
2. Ask what the law still requires. Push your university, board, or employer to keep the services the law still allows, and to say in writing which office now handles accommodation and harassment complaints.
3. File when a legal duty is dropped. If an accommodation or a harassment complaint went nowhere after an office closed, file with the EEOC for a job or the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights for a school. The situations above list the deadlines.
4. Support the programs directly. Donate to, mentor for, or volunteer with the student-support centers, scholarships, and access programs under threat.
5. Ask Congress what was cut. The letter below asks your representative to press federal agencies for a list of every program ended under Executive Order 14151, and to restore any that federal law requires.