Claim: Listed companies have not bowed to Trump and kept DEI commitments
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Major federal actions in 2025 and follow-on memos have aggressively targeted DEI in government, with executive orders directing agencies to end or restrict DEI programs and to pressure contractors and grantees to certify compliance [1] [2]. Several large employers publicly reaffirmed DEI commitments in early 2025, but legal and regulatory pressure — DOJ memos, proposed exclusions from federal programs, and litigation — create material risk that private-sector DEI efforts will be chilled or altered [3] [4] [5].
1. The White House set the tone: executive orders that treat DEI as illegal and seek broad reach
President Trump issued a string of orders in January 2025 that declare many federal DEI programs “illegal” or “wasteful” and direct agencies to terminate or rescind them, to remove DEI from contracting rules, and to insist on “merit‑based” practices [1] [2]. Legal analysis from corporate‑law firms and civil‑rights organizations describes these EOs as sweeping: they revoke prior DEI‑supporting orders, require contractors to certify absence of unlawful DEI programs, and leave ambiguity as to what specific private‑sector practices might be swept in [6] [7] [4].
2. The Justice Department and enforcement tools raise the stakes for employers
Officials followed the White House orders with Department of Justice guidance aimed at investigating and “penalizing” illegal DEI preferences in entities that receive federal funds, a step that pushes the federal government from policy statements into potential enforcement and litigation against employers and institutions [4]. Legal commentators warn that the DOJ posture, combined with an Attorney General memo granting investigative priorities, introduces real civil and criminal exposure for organizations that misread or mishandle the new rules [7] [4].
3. Private companies publicly resisting the White House narrative — but under pressure
Several large companies — named by legal and industry observers as “giants” — publicly reaffirmed the business case for DEI and won investor support for those positions in proxy votes or filings, showing that not all corporations “bowed” to the administration’s rhetoric [3]. Those same analyses, however, stress that firms now face a mix of regulatory hostility and private litigation from conservatives alleging DEI is unlawful, creating market and compliance incentives to narrow or rebrand DEI programs [8].
4. Federal program changes and proposed exclusions illustrate active pushback on institutions
The State Department and other agencies have moved to exclude institutions with DEI hiring practices from certain programs and partnerships; reporting shows a proposed suspension of 38 universities from a research program because of DEI policies, demonstrating how federal policy can tangibly penalize organizations that maintain visible DEI commitments [5]. That action exemplifies how executive policy aims to translate high‑level EOs into concrete consequences for institutions that do not align with the new federal standard [5].
5. Courts, prior rulings and conservative legal strategies amplify uncertainty
Recent court decisions and conservative legal campaigns already weakened some regulatory avenues for DEI (for example, challenges to Nasdaq diversity rules and other litigation), and commentators anticipate more legal attacks and EEOC complaints that could force employers to change practices even if boards and investors prefer to retain DEI programs [8]. Civil‑rights groups argue the EOs are designed to “chill” lawful equal‑opportunity efforts, setting up constitutional and statutory fights likely to continue in courts [9] [4].
6. Outcomes vary: public commitments vs. legal and practical constraints
Available reporting shows companies like Costco, Disney, JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank publicly reaffirming DEI’s importance and succeeding in shareholder votes to defend their positions [3]. At the same time, the federal government’s strategy — executive orders, DOJ investigatory priorities, program exclusions and targeted memos — creates concrete legal and funding risks that could compel private employers, universities, and nonprofits to scale back, rebrand or legally defend their DEI work [4] [5].
7. What the sources do not say and limits of the record
The provided sources do not offer a comprehensive count of how many listed companies have actually changed or dropped DEI programs after January 2025; they document notable reaffirmations and legal pressure but not a definitive, economy‑wide outcome (not found in current reporting). The sources also do not quantify the downstream commercial impact on hiring, retention, or litigation costs across sectors (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line
The factual record in these sources shows a clear federal campaign to end or criminalize certain DEI activities and concrete enforcement and funding levers to press private institutions — yet several major companies publicly doubled down on DEI in 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Whether listed companies broadly “kept” DEI commitments depends on evolving legal outcomes, DOJ enforcement, and whether corporations are willing to absorb regulatory and reputational risk; current reporting documents both resilience among some firms and intensifying pressure that makes blanket claims either way unsupported by the sources provided [3] [4] [5].