Cashing Out on Equity: How Corporations Traded DEI for Political Favor

Donald Trump’s second election signaled a shift in political influence, and powerful firms have sought to remain in his good graces – disregarding what the cost may be.

This article was first published by The Bell on Jan 28, 2025.

George Floyd’s brutal murder and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement forced corporate America to confront its complicity in systemic racism. In response, companies rushed to launch diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs — heralded as a step toward justice but now facing a rapid, reactionary decline, prompting giants like Amazon and Meta to significantly scale back their DEI programs in recent weeks.

The rationale: DEI efforts negatively impact business performance and growth. This argument is gaining momentum as Donald Trump enters office again, leading to a resurgence of nationalist and anti-globalist rhetoric. Trump has repeatedly criticized “woke” culture as detrimental to American prosperity, putting economic success and social progress in opposition with each other.

But framing DEI efforts as detrimental to the American economy underscores a deeper issue: the commodification of social justice. It reflects a profound shift in how social justice is perceived — not as a moral imperative, but as a commodity. The way equity is portrayed reduces complex societal issues like systemic racism and inequity to marketable assets, where corporate interest often supersedes genuine change. The corporate packaging of social justice turns inclusion into a service to be sold, evaluated through metrics like productivity, innovation, or customer satisfaction — aligning societal values with market profitability.

Donald Trump’s second election has signaled a shift in political influence, and powerful firms have sought to remain in his good graces — disregarding what the cost may be. This opportunity to gain more traction and influence in the political sphere incentivized Zuckerberg and others to “recalibrate” their policies, appointing the Republican Joel Kaplan as lead of the global policy team, to reflect the prevailing political climate rather than reaffirming their commitment to a more equitable society.

Many companies adopted DEI initiatives to boost their image and appeal to socially conscious consumers. Seeing inclusion as a brand strategy makes it easier to abolish such programs as soon as they no longer serve economic interests. One can’t ignore how DEI programs in firms such as Meta align with the priorities of those in power. The reason behind this is quite simple: it’s in their best interest to repeat what the money says. And these days, it is saying that it “will end all of the Marxist diversity, equity and inclusion policies [...] immediately.”

What does this say about the purpose of these corporate inclusion policies in the first place? Were they merely performative gestures to align with a temporary social trend? To that point, in his first few days as president, Trump called for a witch hunt for “disguised” diversity initiatives, demanding that US government workers report DEI efforts or face “consequences.”

These stances not only have consequences within corporate America, but this backward step in terms of recognition of human rights and human dignity sets the stage for a global rollback in markets that are in constant interaction with the United States.

If you listen carefully, you can hear corporations whining that “the legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing” as a reason for re-evaluating DEI policies. They now see fair treatment as “serving everyone”, not just one demographic, recentering their policies on “merit and skills-based treatment.” I won't dwell here on the extent to which this approach conceals oppressive practices, in and out of corporations, towards people from diverse backgrounds who are not competing on a level playing field.

It has been well demonstrated that a diverse workforce drives innovation, expands markets, and fuels growth. It equips companies to adapt to diverse consumer needs and navigate an increasingly globalized market with cultural competency. But more importantly, diversity humanizes business practices. It challenges institutions to reflect the values of the communities they serve, and to foster empathy and vivre ensemble. Scaling back on DEI efforts reverses the progress made in the past decade toward these goals and perpetuates inequalities that harm not only employees but also society at large.

I’d like to think that when a door closes, a window necessarily opens. And from the little crack, one may hear the persistent voices of those who refuse to let the fight for justice be reduced to a fleeting corporate trend. The question is: will leaders and corporations have enough courage to stand tall against Donald Trump’s mischief, or will they continue to capitulate to convenience and power?

__________

Suggested citation : Veilleux, Noémie (2025). Cashing Out on Equity: How Corporations Traded DEI for Political Favor. The Bell, McGill's Max Bell School of Public Policy. https://maxpolicy.substack.com/p/mercantilisation-de-lequite-ledi