Are corporations abandoning DEI? The impact on Black America

While only federal organizations and agencies are required to abide by the orders, countless private businesses and companies have begun to remove their DEI initiatives as well.

These changes are reflected across businesses throughout California and the U.S. Household names have begun removing their DEI initiatives in response to the executive orders.

Tecoy Porter, president of the National Action Network (NAN) Sacramento Chapter, notes the importance of remembering why DEI policies were introduced in the first place.

“They were never about handouts or special treatment,” he says, “but they’re about acknowledging the historical imbalance and taking steps to correct that.”

In January, Target announced it would begin rolling back its DEI policies. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, Target and its CEO, Brian Cornell, became a prominent voice in promoting diversity.

After his death, the company announced several plans and steps to “advance racial equity,” including increasing its Black workforce by 20% over the next three years, pledging to spend more than $2 billion with Black-owned businesses by the end of 2025, and planning $100 million to support Black-led nonprofits and provide scholarships to HBCU students.

In 2022, the Executive Leadership Council, an organization of global Black CEOs supporting Black and inclusive communities, honored Target for its commitment to DEI. Cornell accepted the award for the company at the ELC’s annual recognition gala.

Now, Target has ended its plan to increase its Black workforce and stopped vowing to directly advance equality in its announcements.

On April 17, Rev. Al Sharpton, founder and president of NAN, met with Cornell to discuss Target’s DEI stances. Sharpton called the visit “a very constructive and candid meeting.”

“We want them to come back and lean back into DEI,” Porter says. “It wasn’t fair. And we’re not saying we want to have an advantage. We just want to have an opportunity.”

Mel Assagai, principal at California Policy Solutions, notes the importance of individual spending in supporting DEI initiatives. After removing its diversity policies, Target faced eight consecutive weeks where foot traffic fell at an average of 6.2% as individuals vowed to boycott the company. A recent report estimated the DEI cuts resulted in nearly 5 million fewer store visits across four weeks.

On the contrary, Costco’s support has grown as it has stood by its diversity policies and initiatives. Beginning March 17, traffic at Costco rose 5.2% year-over-year and continued to grow for 13 weeks.

“It is up to the individuals and consumers to decide where to buy from and what to educate themselves on,” Assagai says.

Target is one of many name-brand companies to have removed its diversity initiatives, many of which have ended because of political changes.

On Jan. 10, Meta released a memo stating it has ended several DEI programs, including initiatives to increase diversity among its hiring candidates and in its training programs.

Janelle Gale, Meta’s vice president of people, says the shifts come from a change in the “legal and policy landscape.”

Several banking and financial services companies have also dropped diversity requirements and removed mentions of DEI initiatives on their websites.

State Street, an investment firm notable for its “Fearless Girl” statue that stood for gender diversity, previously expected boards of companies in major indices to be made up of at least 30% female directors. Larger S&P companies were also expected to have at least one racial or ethnic minority director.

However, both of these requirements appear to have recently been dropped to “ensure alignment with global protocols and local laws and regulations,” the company told Reuters.

Like State Street, investment bank Goldman Sachs in 2018 implemented a requirement that companies must have two board members from underrepresented groups in order to go public.

From 2021-2023, the banking firm released reviews and reports showing that DEI efforts were improving client interest and reputational gains.

However, Goldman Sachs recently removed the requirement and removed a section on “diversity and inclusion” from its annual filing. CEO David Solomon says these changes were to “reflect developments in the law in the U.S.,” Reuters reported.

Private universities also have begun adhering to Trump’s orders. In January, Stanford University removed DEI and DEIA content from its website, sparking concern within the university. Several universities have followed similarly, including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and the University of Iowa.

While several schools are rolling back their DEI initiatives and statements, many continue supporting their missions for diversity. On April 14, Harvard President Alan Garber announced it will not comply with the administration’s demands to end DEI programs, limit student protests, and federal audits in exchange for federal funding.

“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote.

While the decision has sparked backlash from the administration, universities, including Stanford, have publicly supported Harvard’s choice to maintain its diversity programs.

“Diversity is not a trend, equity is not a handout, and inclusion is not an option, but it’s a necessity,” Porter says.