Former President Donald Trump’s efforts to advocate for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and the broader “woke” philosophy are taking on tangible form—it’s not just talk anymore. It’s changing institutional culture.
This shift comes after years of strong pushback from DEI advocates, during which diversity officers became prominent figures on college campuses and in corporate boardrooms, enforcing a strict ideological agenda. Activists targeted not just speakers they disagreed with, but went so far as to prevent them from speaking at all. In many major news and tech companies, employees banded together to pressure management into aligning with their political views, often resorting to public shaming tactics.
There’s a looming, significant threat that even a thorough understanding of history cannot erase.
Recently, the momentum of the DEI movement has noticeably slowed, with several organizations altering their policies or reducing the number of roles dedicated to these initiatives.
One of the most surprising moves came from Meta, which announced it would stop political adjustments and censorship.
Such a change is surprising, particularly considering that major platforms have historically used censorship to silence dissenting views, including banning Trump himself.
What prompted this shift?
Maybe the quick changes stem from Trump’s significant win in the 2024 presidential race, granting various elites the green light to reassess societal consensus.
However, I think there’s more at play; it seems like there’s an awareness that the movement has perhaps overreached. Social movements often have to push boundaries before finding their footing, but there’s definitely something worth pondering here.
Peter Drucker’s first book, The End of the Economic Person, highlighted how fascist and communist strategies aimed to dominate society alongside existing governance and businesses, ultimately failing. The same lessons apply today.
Historical parallels can be drawn between authoritarian regimes, whether Nazis or Soviet communists, demonstrating that they operated under similar dynamics.
Those who truly grasp the various ideological influences—whether racial, gender-based, climate-focused, or anti-Israel—should notice them converging under the “woke” banner, gaining traction within American institutions.
Proponents of this woke authority have been fervently prioritizing their agenda across various organizations. This has parallels with ideologies of past totalitarian regimes; the same can be seen in American churches, where materialism and pride seem increasingly dominant, overshadowing traditional values.
This isn’t about equating today’s movements with Nazis or totalitarian regimes for the sake of shock. Rather, it’s an observation that powerful movements historically gained influence by infiltrating institutions. Today, we’re observing similar strategies from contemporary social movements.
If these ideological activists want to avoid creating a society that defines institutional behavior, they’ll need to constrain their growth and influence.
Acknowledgments
Some American elites, including Elon Musk, seem cognizant of this challenge. Whether motivated by principle, instinct, or self-preservation, they’ve started to push back.
This doesn’t imply that CEOs will openly oppose the woke movement; however, we’re witnessing a subtle deflation of the cultural bubble. It’s as if the air is slowly leaking out. Learning from past mistakes might be enough to keep us from veering off the edge into a woke abyss.
Former Secretary of State George Schultz once highlighted the conflict between ideas and initiatives—and that’s still relevant today. Even if the woke alliance encounters a setback, other events and charismatic figures could always breathe new life into what seems to be dying.
Ultimately, by taking time to learn from history, we can better understand human behavior and equip ourselves against potent threats, especially by safeguarding against intellectually corrosive ideas.
