An analysis reveals that from January 2023 to May 2025, Fortune 100 companies significantly reduced their mentions of the term “DEI” by about 98%. This shift began soon after President Trump’s inauguration, which included a presidential order aimed at federal DEI initiatives. As a result, well-known companies like McDonald’s, Walmart, and Target decided to end their DEI programs.
For many conservatives, this retreat from the concept was a reason to celebrate. However, that celebration may have been a bit premature.
The objective now seems less about launching new diversity initiatives and more about making these efforts less visible but more ingrained. DEI is far from extinction. “Inclusion consultant” Lily Zheng suggests the term is evolving into FAIR (Fairness, Access, Inclusion, Representation). Zheng pointed out that this change isn’t merely a rebranding; it’s about advancing the underlying effort itself.
This so-called “legacy DEI” concentrated on visible initiatives like diversity training and heritage months, which were often criticized and easy targets. The new strategy shifts away from these public programs, aiming instead to alter what Zheng describes as “the system.” Rather than merely tracking representation, FAIR prioritizes systemic changes embedded right into recruitment algorithms and promotion pathways.
This transition reflects a broader adaptability among progressives, who regrouped after setbacks like the 2021 Virginia election. Instead of retreating, groups like Data for Progress redirected their strategies, leading to Democratic victories in subsequent close races.
Likewise, even when faced with backlash against explicit DEI programs, the underlying issues persist, though they may be harder to pinpoint. Companies are now replacing “DEI” with terminology like “universal fairness” and “inclusion by design.” This encompasses a more nuanced approach, moving from overt identity preferences to nuanced, process-oriented changes.
In my book, I talk about how group identity politics often center on grievances instead of results. This explains why DEI initiatives can’t simply declare a win and shut down; they require ongoing complaints to justify continued intervention.
Traditional DEI metrics can theoretically reach a point of satisfaction, while FAIR rejects that notion entirely in favor of continual systemic scrutiny. There will always be more systems to assess, processes to revamp, and obstacles to overcome. Companies can ax initiatives like Heritage Month, but algorithmic audits tied to recruitment will remain.
The executive order from Trump marked a strategic withdrawal from overt initiatives, but it didn’t end the underlying issues. Those favoring a grievance model won’t back down easily. By January 2026, when Zheng laid out the FAIR model, it indicated that the evolution of DEI efforts had taken a new form.
Trump’s presidential order in March 2026, which called for federal contractors to confirm they do not discriminate based on race or ethnicity, suggests a recognition of these ongoing evasion tactics. The order acknowledges that some entities are still engaging in DEI-like activities and may seek to hide them. However, simply banning unequal treatment won’t dismantle systems that prioritize equity while still aiming for similar demographic results through different means.
Regardless of terminology, DEI serves to reinforce a sense of learned helplessness. It conveys that personal struggles are often a result of systematic discrimination rather than individual choices, creating a dependence on institutional interventions. Some progressives seem committed to maintaining this dependency.
While it may feel gratifying to see DEI departments dismantled or diversity language removed, the real issue persists if the core grievance culture continues under a new guise.
As the narrative behind DEI morphs into subtler forms, the battle for merit-based principles demands greater insight and perseverance. So, when a company presents its revamped DEI program as a “universal equity” initiative, it’s crucial to dig deeper. Request specific metrics. Inquire about the disparities prompting intervention and the outcomes expected from such actions.
Progressives have adapted their strategies to stay relevant, going underground to obscure mechanisms that support their goals. It’s essential to bring these concepts back into the spotlight and confront them head-on.
