How have specific federal agencies changed their Black History Month programming since the 2025 anti‑DEI order?
Executive summary
Since President Trump’s January 2025 executive actions targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), several federal agencies either curtailed, paused or publicly signaled they would not hold traditional Black History Month programming, even as the White House itself marked the month with a reception and a short presidential proclamation [1] [2] [3]. The response has been uneven — some agencies canceled events or archived DEI pages, others issued internal guidance trying to preserve “educational, cultural, or historical” observances — leaving a patchwork of muted commemorations and legal and public-relations fights [4] [5] [6].
1. What the 2025 anti‑DEI orders said and why agencies treated Black History Month differently
The executive orders and follow-up memoranda directed agencies to eliminate DEIA offices and programs and to identify DEI-linked contracts and positions, creating pressure to suspend or end identity-based initiatives across government [6] [2]. But Department of Justice guidance later noted there was “no prohibition on educational, cultural, or historical observances” when they do not engage in exclusionary practices, creating a legal ambiguity agencies interpreted in different ways [5].
2. Agencies that paused or canceled Black History Month activities
The Defense Intelligence Agency reportedly issued a memo pausing activities tied to 11 “special observances,” which included Black History Month, and other DoD components issued similar directives to suspend affinity groups and special observances [4]. The Department of Transportation publicly announced it “will no longer participate in celebrations based on immutable traits or any other identity-based observances,” and the State Department circulated guidance urging staff to align observances with the administration’s anti‑DEI priorities [1] [7] [8]. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation tracked agency moves including archived DEI pages and canceled celebrations across agencies [6].
3. The White House stayed on script while agencies pulled back
Despite the cascade of agency-level cancellations and pauses, the White House preserved the ceremonial tradition: the president hosted a Black History Month reception in the East Room and issued a pared-back proclamation that avoided earlier administrations’ explicit references to slavery or civil-rights milestones, signaling a controlled, top-down recognition even as agency programs were dismantled [3] [2]. Journalists noted this contrast — formal presidential recognition alongside an administrative campaign to curb DEI programming [1] [9].
4. What changed in practice — archived pages, staff sidelined, and canceled affinity groups
Reporting documented concrete changes: agency DEI webpages and resources were archived or deactivated, employee resource groups were disbanded in at least some agencies, and DEI staff were placed on leave while agencies rewrote plans for compliance with the orders, producing immediate effects on how Black History Month material was hosted or publicized internally and externally [4] [6] [10].
5. Mixed legal and public responses shaped agency choices
Some agencies interpreted the orders as mandating silence on identity‑based commemorations, while others leaned on DOJ clarifications to preserve historical and cultural programming; courts and agency counsel remained relevant variables as blocks and challenges to parts of the anti‑DEI agenda proceeded, contributing to the uneven implementation [5] [11]. Advocacy groups and Congressional actors tracked the removals and raised alarms about the broader impact on access to historical education [6] [10].
6. Political framing, messaging and the broader implications
Administration defenders framed the changes as a move toward “merit” and a rejection of what they called divisive identity politics, with advisers and spokespeople arguing that formal recognition could continue under new constraints [7] [8]. Critics — including historical scholars and civil‑rights advocates cited in reporting — portrayed the cancellations and page removals as an erasure of institutional memory and a practical rollback of programs aimed at equity and recruitment [9] [10]. The result is a federal landscape where Black History Month observance depends on agency leadership, legal interpretation and local decisions rather than uniform policy.