Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity: A Policy Analysis

On the surface, the Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity executive order claims to champion fairness and equality by dismantling race- and sex-based preferences in federal hiring, contracting, and funding processes. Its stated purpose is to restore “merit-based” systems, where opportunities are awarded based on individual aptitude, achievement, and hard work. At first glance, such an approach may seem aligned with the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. However, when examined closely, this order marks a significant rollback of decades of progress made in addressing systemic inequities that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

Beneath the rhetoric of “merit-based opportunity,” this order effectively eliminates diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that were designed to level the playing field. Federal agencies and contractors will no longer be required, or even allowed, to take proactive measures to address historical inequities in hiring or educational access. By targeting and terminating affirmative action principles, the order has the potential to strip away opportunities for those who have historically been excluded or disadvantaged, embedding inequities into the very fabric of American institutions under the guise of neutrality.

The impact of this shift will ripple across every facet of American life, from education to employment, public safety to corporate governance. The data suggests that such policies could widen existing inequalities, stifle upward mobility for marginalized groups, and foster an environment where systemic discrimination remains unchecked. What many Americans may not initially recognize is how the removal of DEI practices could influence everything from workforce diversity to economic productivity, and even the global perception of the United States as a leader in civil rights. In this analysis, we’ll dig deeper into these implications, explore the broader goals behind this policy, and predict how this executive order will shape the future of our society.

This executive order seeks to end the use of race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across Federal agencies, contractors, and funded entities. It repeals multiple executive orders and policies from past administrations that advanced DEI principles. While framed as a return to “merit-based opportunity,” this order effectively dismantles systemic efforts to address historic inequalities, threatening the progress made in creating inclusive opportunities for marginalized groups.

Key Provisions:

• Termination of DEI Policies Across Federal Government and Contractors:
  • Revokes key executive orders promoting diversity and inclusion in government hiring and contracting.
  • Halts affirmative action mandates in Federal contracting and workforce balancing initiatives.
• Private Sector Accountability Measures:
  • Instructs Federal agencies to promote civil rights compliance in the private sector and deter DEI programs deemed to violate anti-discrimination laws.
  • Requires identification of “egregious and discriminatory” DEI practices in key sectors, including education and corporate environments.
• Comprehensive Legal Strategy:
  • Calls for a strategic enforcement plan targeting entities allegedly promoting unlawful DEI practices.
  • Directs legal actions against organizations deemed to prioritize identity-based policies over merit-based ones.

Historical Context and Precedent

• Relation to Previous Policies:
  • Biden Administration: Strongly emphasized DEI policies, including environmental justice, equitable healthcare, and workforce diversity initiatives.
  • Trump Administration: Scaled back affirmative action policies and framed DEI initiatives as divisive or discriminatory against majority groups.
  • This order reverses decades of efforts to address systemic inequities, disregarding the proven barriers faced by historically marginalized communities.
• Implications:
  • Represents a rollback of civil rights advancements in favor of policies promoting so-called “colorblind” meritocracy.
  • Follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which dismantled affirmative action in higher education, signaling a broader attack on equity-based policies.

Broader Policy Context

• Connection to Project 2025’s Vision
  This executive order is a cornerstone in aligning the federal government with the principles outlined in Project 2025. Project 2025 emphasizes a vision of “restoring constitutional limits,” “rolling back unnecessary bureaucracy,” and “reinforcing the foundational values of merit and excellence.” The elimination of DEI programs fits squarely into this framework, as it reflects a broader aim to remove policies perceived as “identity-based” and instead promote a system focused on “individual achievement and equal opportunity under the law.”Citations and Direct Quotes:
  For instance, Project 2025 explicitly calls for reforms in federal hiring to “prioritize merit-based advancement” and eliminate “radical diversity quotas.” This mirrors the executive order’s directive to revoke Executive Orders 13583 and 13672, which previously advanced DEI initiatives in federal hiring and contracting. A relevant quote from the Project 2025 framework states:

  “Federal hiring and employment practices must reject favoritism or preferences of any kind based on race, sex, or other immutable characteristics.”

  Readers interested in exploring this connection further can consult the Project 2025 document (p. 52) for specific language on meritocracy and the elimination of DEI as a priority across federal agencies

Predicted Outcomes

Practical Effects:

• Economic Impact:
  • Private-sector organizations dependent on federal grants or contracts may face regulatory and financial uncertainty.
  • Marginalized groups could experience reduced access to opportunities in education, government contracting, and employment.
• Social and Institutional Impact:
  • Institutions of higher education, major corporations, and nonprofits could face scrutiny for DEI programs, discouraging diversity-related initiatives.
  • Reinforces systemic inequities under the guise of enforcing “civil rights compliance.”

Sector-Specific Predictions:

• Education:
  • Higher education institutions may disband DEI offices or curtail diversity-focused scholarships due to federal pressure.
• Workforce:
  • Disproportionate impact on marginalized workers who benefit from diversity hiring programs.
• Legal Environment:
  • Surge in lawsuits against DEI initiatives, emboldened by this federal mandate.

State and Public Reactions

• Legal Challenges:
  • Probability: 100%
    • States such as California, Washington, and Oregon, which have robust DEI policies, are likely to sue, citing conflict with state-level mandates.
    • Civil rights organizations will challenge the dismantling of protections and programs promoting equity.
• Public Sentiment:
  • Probability: 90% Public Opposition
    • Activists and civil rights groups will mobilize protests, framing the order as an attack on progress toward racial and gender equity.
    • Public sentiment will likely polarize, with some viewing the rollback as necessary to restore “fairness,” while others see it as a regression.
• Federal-State Relations:
  • Probability: 80% State Resistance
    • Progressive states may enact local DEI mandates to counteract federal rollbacks.
    • Strained relationships between the federal government and equity-focused states.

Interrelated Impacts

• Energy Policies:
  • Reinforces broader deregulatory trends that undermine inclusive approaches to climate and energy solutions.
• Economic Inequality:
  • Amplifies structural barriers, as federal support for equity initiatives dissipates.
• Workforce Diversity:
  • Cascading effects across sectors reliant on federal policies to promote diversity.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations

• Potential Challenges:
  • Constitutionality of Revocations: Could be challenged under equal protection or First Amendment grounds, particularly if state or private entities face penalties for lawful DEI practices.
  • Interference with State Rights: Federal overreach into states’ ability to implement their own equity-focused policies may trigger legal battles.

Global Implications

• International Perception:
  • Weakens the United States’ global leadership on civil rights and equality.
  • Sends conflicting messages to allies on the importance of equity in governance.
• Trade Relations:
  • Corporations with global operations may face difficulties reconciling U.S. mandates with international diversity standards.

Expanded Probability Estimates

• White House – Presidential Actions
• New York Times – DEI Policy Backlash
• Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
• EPA – Equity and Environmental Justice
• Bloomberg – Corporate Reactions to Equity Rollbacks
• PDF Download of this Order as it appears 01-22-2025 ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION ANDRESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY