Equity Policy Reversals Threaten Progress in Global Governance

The agenda presented by Donald Trump during his inauguration as the 47th President of the United States raises deep concern within the international community regarding the risk of significant setbacks in human rights and the weakening of commitments to sustainable development, both nationally and globally. Ana Piquer, Americas Director at Amnesty International, acknowledges that “the human rights impact of U.S. policy can have an expansive wave effect on the rest of the American continent and the world”.

In addition to executive orders targeting climate action, such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the energy policy favouring the maximization of fossil fuel exploitation, Trump announced a militarization of migration policy that includes mass deportations and the beginning of the process to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. These measures can exacerbate social and humanitarian tensions, increase poverty levels, and reduce the global capacity to respond to health crises.

Adding to this context is an executive order to repeal federal programs aimed at promoting racial and gender equity under the premise of ending what his administration calls “discriminatory initiatives.” This decision could substantially amplify the negative impacts of the policies, as mentioned above, creating a cascading effect of overlapping vulnerabilities. In his inaugural speech, Trump pledged to “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based” and stated that, henceforth, “the official policy of the United States government [is] that there are only two genders: male and female.”

One of Trump’s actions repeals a civil rights-era executive order from 1965, which was signed just two years after Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. In that speech, Dr. King envisioned a nation where all people are treated equally and share a sense of brotherhood, regardless of their race. The repealed order was designed to combat workplace discrimination and expand equal employment opportunities by encouraging federal contractors to implement affirmative action in their hiring processes.

Within three days of taking office, all employees involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives were placed on paid leave, followed by steps to close associated offices and remove DEI program web pages. Furthermore, a U.S. Office of Personnel Management memorandum demanded that department heads and agencies submit written plans to execute layoffs in DEI offices by January 31, 2025.

In this context, the movement of major corporations and global financial institutions withdrawing from their equity-related goals and programs has gained momentum. According to David Glasgow, Executive Director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University (NYU), the number of lawsuits against affirmative action has surged following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision declaring affirmative action in higher education illegal, citing claims of “reverse discrimination.” Many corporate leaders no longer wish to navigate the risks of addressing such a controversial issue.

It is crucial to note, however, that the rhetoric of a “colourblind” society ignores that racial disparities in wealth, employment, education, health, housing, incarceration rates, and other indicators are direct results of the historical institutionalization of racial segregation in the United States. From 246 years of forced and unpaid labour imposed on racial minorities to Jim Crow laws, this legacy has created a deep and persistent chasm between racial groups.

Some inherited wealth, access to quality education and healthcare, and social, cultural, and political capital built over generations while bearing the burden of a history of systemic exclusion. This divide has been created over decades through policies and practices that denied certain groups access to basic rights necessary for their full development and access to equitable opportunities.

When analyzed in isolation, merit fails to account for the structural disparities that often create insurmountable barriers for many individuals. If the starting points of this race are unequal, fair competition cannot exist. Equity policies do not discriminate against white men or non-minority groups; their purpose is not to punish or harm any group but to correct historical distortions that have benefited some individuals to the detriment of others.

It is also important to emphasize that promoting a more equitable society goes beyond a moral imperative: racial disparities have an economic cost that affects not only racial and ethnic minorities but society as a whole.

Wally Adeyemo, former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury dos EUA, argues that “The exclusion of communities of color from the ladder of economic opportunity holds back economic growth for the entire country […] When people gain access to the resources they need to build their economic future and withstand financial shocks, it is not just good for individuals and their families, but it also benefits the communities where they live, work, and invest, with beneficial spillovers to the economy as a whole”.

Among the potential consequences of reversing DEI policies, both in the public and private sectors, are:

1. Reduced representation of Black, Indigenous, and other people of colour (PoC), as well as transgender individuals, in leadership positions and decision-making spaces, limiting diverse voices in strategic debates.
2. Greater exclusion of PoC and transgender individuals from access to the job market, healthcare services, and quality education, exacerbating existing inequalities.
3. Increased wage disparities among racial and gender groups, deepening economic inequality.
4. Reinforcement of barriers to social mobility for minority groups, perpetuating cycles of poverty and exclusion in already vulnerable communities.
5. Diminished innovation and productivity – which are often associated with diversity in workplaces and leadership.
6. Deepened intergenerational socioeconomic inequalities further hindered the historical overcoming of exclusion.
7. Increased violence against minorities is aggravated by the weakening of institutional mechanisms for legal protection and the legitimization of exclusionary rhetoric.

True social transformation requires a multilateral effort that recognizes the historical complexities of inequality and commits to building more just and equitable societies. Defending human rights and the rights of minority groups goes beyond national borders and requires a renewed global commitment to dignity, equity, and social justice. Achieving this goal demands collaborative and sustained efforts among international organizations, civil society, academia, the private sector, and governments on a global scale.

It is essential to develop mechanisms for international pressure, create networks of support and solidarity, monitor and document human rights violations, and promote education and awareness about equality and inclusion. These efforts should culminate in developing collective solutions that genuinely ensure opportunities for all, regardless of origin, race, gender, or social condition.