Trailblazing Toward Autocracy: How Trump’s Anti-DEI Policy Violates Democracy

“In the United States, there is no king,” begins the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education et al.’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump. 

Since his inauguration, President Donald Trump issued numerous executive orders halting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Including the banning of transgender individuals from military service, rescinding federal funds granted towards projects promoting equity, and pausing DEI programs in federal agencies and non-government organizations, the President ceases all previous efforts of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, research, healthcare, and education. 

DEI programs strive to increase equity in workplaces, school environments, and the cumulative society. Diversity, the first pillar of DEI, refers to the diversity of language, ethnicity, gender expression, sexuality, national identity, disability, religion, and age. Equity recognizes that while all people across all communities may harbor the same merit capabilities, they are not allowed the same opportunities to express such capabilities. Inclusion, the last pillar of DEI, is the effort to ensure every voice feels safe enough to be heard.  

By barring the expression of DEI values in research and in private organizations, penalizing gender expression, and discriminating against certain margins of identities based on lax justification, President Donald Trump violates the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. If organizations fail to comply with the executive orders, President Trump has threatened organizations with the freeze of federal funds and grants, violating the constitutional power of the purse reserved for Congress. A flood of lawsuits against the President for violating the Constitution currently await hearing. Reaching beyond the scope of executive power outlined in the Constitution and suppressing fundamental rights, the President undermines the rule of law, embodying the role of an autocrat. 

Sheri Berman, Professor of political science at Barnard College, defines populism as the exhibition of a manichean worldview, characterizing populists as wielding the zero-sum game of us vs. them, where “us” refers to “the people” and “them” refers to liberal elites, minority groups, immigrants, or establishments. Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and political sociologist, defines authoritarian populism as the dismantling of institutional safeguards, the mobilization of categorization, and the removal of pluralism.

By simply institutionalizing the discrimination of LGBTQ+ individuals and dismantling diversity initiatives, Trump enforces the segregation of establishments and minorities, ruling through the manichean lens of an authoritarian populist. Recently, the President has publicly referred to himself as a “King,” putting out statements about how he believes he is beyond the scope of law. By stationing himself above the rule of law, he not only acts like an autocratic populist, he is also racing towards the kingdom of autocracy. 

In this piece, I will analyze the impact and constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders pertaining to DEI while analyzing how they impact the democratic status of the United States of America. 

Background

In a series of federal directives and executive orders, President Donald J. Trump prohibits the promotion and protection of diversity ensured by DEI initiatives with the promise to return the United States back to "a society that is color-blind and merit-based." 

On January 20, 2025, the day of President Trump’s inauguration, the President issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing," ordering the termination of all federal employees working on DEI initiatives. Another, issued on the same day, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forbids all government agencies from any use of language that encourages “gender ideology,” declaring that the United States recognizes only two sexes, not genders: female and male. The executive order also bars federal prisons from providing gender affirming care to inmates and orders all agencies to ensure official documents are devoid of language expressing “gender ideologies.” 

Just one day later, President Trump signed another titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” ordering all federal agencies, programs, and contractors to end any “illegal DEI programs.” Without defining “illegal DEI program,” many federal agencies are left in confusion, unsure of what the implications of such an order entail. 

Attempted through a series of Twitter posts during his first term, the President bans transgender individuals from military service again through an executive order titled, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” signed on January 27, 2025. On January 31, 2025, a federal directive related to Trump’s executive orders demanded federal agencies, including veteran hospitals, health agencies, and local health departments, to terminate any program or document that promotes “gender ideologies.”

Currently, lawsuits, including Shilling et al. v. Trump and National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) et al. v. Trump, challenges the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders. 

Consequences

Trump’s initiative to end DEI reverses decades of progress made upon the 1960s Civil Rights movement aimed to create fair processes in workplaces and in social spaces for women and ethnic minority groups. From affirmative action policies, addressing historical racial discrimination after the Civil Rights Movement, to Black Lives Matter inspiring the holistic incorporation of DEI in various programs and organizations, DEI has battled prejudices and stereotypes that limit the equitable access to resources. With the rollback of DEI policies, the United States is seeing a backsliding in civil rights protection for women, people of color, transgender individuals, and LGBTQ+ people, illustrating the executive order’s devastating effect in federal workplaces, education centers, and the sciences. 

Employment

The ACLU defines DEI programs as “a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and ensure opportunities aren’t limited based on race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” The emphasis is not just on the selection of individuals for hiring, but the creation of “fairer processes.” For instance, the expansion of mentorship for historically marginalized groups or job recruitments at underrepresented institutions are all efforts exerted through DEI initiatives. 

In response to Trump’s executive orders, the Department of Education’s federal employees were put out of work for no apparent disciplinary reason. Allegedly, the unknown number of federal employees put on leave was due to Trump’s anti-DEI orders. However, many did not work with DEI programming. Associated Press reported that while it is unclear how many were put on leave, about 55 received an email saying they were to be put on leave immediately. The only confounding variable is the optional diversity training course these employees participated in. As of now, it is unclear if all were put on leave. 

The Department of Veteran Affairs put 60 of its employees on paid leave, all of whom participate in DEI-related work. They plan to also cancel all contracts pertaining to DEI-trainings and services, deciding to allocate the resources to “better support the Veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors the department exists to serve.”

Mimicking his 2017 ban on transgender individuals from the military, in a directive titled, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” President Trump prohibits the service of transgender individuals in the military, reversing President Biden’s executive order permitting their service.

Education

In the executive order titled, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schools,” the president has ordered schools to stop teaching material related to race and sexuality, threatening them with the withdrawal of federal money. He claims that teaching “Critical Race Theory” is a violation of the constitution, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and sexuality. The alleged dismantling of the Department of Education threatens Title 1 schools, located in lower-income neighborhoods. The San Francisco Unified School District will face a cut in schools serving low-income communities. 

West Point Military Academy has already shut down 12 student-led organizations, claiming these programs didn’t comply with the Academy's values and that the Pentagon should cease to celebrate “identity.” The clubs forced to disband include the “Society of Women Engineers, the Latin Cultural Club and Spectrum, [and] an LGBTQ+ support group,” The Guardian reported. 

Public Health, Science, and Medicine

Not only is eradicating DEI detrimental to hiring processes, it also devastates progress made in the health and medical sectors. Many of the C.D.C website’s pages have gone dark since the federal directive was announced on Friday, January 31st. Though vague, the federal directive was explicit about the removal of words like DEI, and gender from all CDC websites. Pages missing from the C.D.C website include a page “which surveys youngsters about dangerous activities like drinking and drug use, smoking and risky sexual behaviors that can lead to unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases,” reported the New York Times.

Others with essential information about gender-based violence, supporting lgbtq youth, and racism in health have also been deleted. The C.D.C’s Atlas Plus, a database for public health information and research data, has gone dark. DEI has ensured that all historically underrepresented groups in healthcare, like LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and racial minorities, were included in medical research and considered in the distribution of public health resources. The loss of information critical to the maintenance of public health, especially to minority groups most vulnerable to the effects of lost public health resources, shows the detriment of Trump’s new executive order. 

Employees at a state H.I.V prevention center have expressed fears about what the prohibition of speech relating to gender, especially transgender individuals, would implicate in the effort to eradicate H.I.V. Transgender individuals are at high risk of contracting the detrimental virus that deteriorates the immune system simply because their marginalized social status encourages participation in activities—substance abuse, sex work, and lack of healthcare access—that increases the risk of contraction. Yet, with the new federal directive banning conversations about gender in relation to medical research and outreach programs, the initiative to prevent H.I.V is predicted to slow, putting transgender individuals at the most risk of contraction. 

The Children’s Hospital L.A. has stopped providing hormonal therapy to transgender youth under 19 amidst an executive order titled, “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” Patients have said that the hospital has already canceled appointments previously scheduled. With the lack of hormonal replacement therapy, there may follow a decline in mental health among transgender youth. 

The Veteran Affairs Hospital has also received an email ordering an end to accessibility programs and other DEI related programs. 30% of veterans have a disability and the hospital treats many disabled veterans. 

The order to ban any gendered and DEI language from published websites has led medical and health researchers to not publish new findings or remove their websites entirely in fear of their programs being cut. Federal agencies have already gone into a veterans affair facility and deleted every file with the mention of DEI. The withholding of research deprives the public of access to vital public health information while slowing the progression of research which relies on the publications of other researchers to further relevant findings. 

Constitutionality

Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and the American Association of University Professors have sued Trump and his administration in federal court for the violation of the first amendment, fifth amendment, and fourteenth amendment. Below, I will explore the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive orders through pending lawsuits Shilling et al. v. Trump and National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) et al. v. Trump.

Transgender Ban

On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued the executive order titled, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” (2025 Military Ban), banning transgender individuals from enlisting in the military and dismissing all active transgender service members. This is not the first time Trump has attacked transgender individuals in the military. 

In 2016, Secretary Carter announced the revocation of a military ban on transgender individuals through a press conference and the now archived Department of Defence web page titled, “Department of Defence Transgender Policy.” The next year, President Donald Trump reversed the lift of the transgender ban through a series of tweets, banning transgender individuals from enlisting in the military. 17 attorney generals from 17 states and the District of Columbia condemned the President’s segregation of transgender individuals from the military in a letter, denouncing the President’s violation of “fundamental constitutional and American values.” Subsequent lawsuits, Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, led to preliminary injunctions before President Joe Biden’s Executive Order No. 14004 reversed the ban. 

In the lawsuit, Shilling et al. v. Trump, plaintiffs—all transgender members of members in the military and a transgender individual who hoped to enlist—sued the President for violating their constitutional right of free speech and expression, due process, and equal protection. The directive declares the prioritization of “military excellence and readiness,” categorically excluding transgender individuals under the allegation that they do not meet such standards.

The 2025 Military Ban alleges that transgender individuals lack the necessary “humility and selflessness” and are unfit with the standard of honor necessary from any in service to the military. Yet, according to the lawsuit, the decorated plaintiffs cumulatively possess numerous awards that institutionalizes their qualifications for service. In her service to her country, Commander Shilling has been awarded three Air Medals, the Daedalian Award for Superior Airmanship During an Emergency, a meritorious Service Medal, two Navy Commendations, and three United States Navy and United States Marine Corps Achievement Medals.

Subsequently, most Plaintiffs have served in the military for more than a decade, with Commander Shilling and Commander Blake Dremann serving 19 years in the United States Navy and Commander Cathrine Schmid serving more than 20 years in the United States Army. In response to Trump’s 2017 military ban, 56 retired generals and admirals warned that banning transgender individuals from the military would demote military standards and preparedness. 

The federal directive claims that “hormonal and surgical medical interventions,” as well as, a gender incongruent with one’s biological sex is inconsistent with the disciplined and honorific lifestyle required of military personnels. However, section 161 of the lawsuit articulated that “The American medical Association, American psychological Association, and American psychiatric Association all oppose the banning of transgender people from the military, agreeing that there's no medical reason transgender troops should be barred from serving.” 

Lacking the persuasive and valid justification of the discrimination of trangender individuals, the executive order violates the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment and subsequently, the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, commensurate with the Fifth Amendment. The Due Process Clause forbids the deprivation of “life, liberty, and property without due process of law” and the withholding of equal protection from the federal government and its officials. The Equal Protection Clause bars discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

Based on President Donald Trump’s assertion that transgender individuals “cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service” when the decorated Plaintiffs proved excellence in their long years of service, Trump is evidently discriminating on the basis of gender identity, violating the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection against discrimination. To systematically target and exclude a group of individuals on the basis of “sexual and hormonal medical interventions” blatantly violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Because of the 2016 military policy permitting transgender service in the military and the 2021 executive order, Plaintiffs felt comfortable disclosing their transgender identity, taking steps to transition genders, and living openly in alliance with their gender identities. After being induced to embody their gender identities, the directive aims to punish the plaintiffs for acting in accordance with policies that permitted and safeguard the disclosement of their identities. Due to equitable estoppel, the defendants cannot punish plaintiffs for what they permitted them to do. 

Many plaintiffs also have families who are military dependent. With the federal directive, they risk losing necessary medical care and retirement benefits. By violating their procedural due process rights, the defendants have stripped the plaintiffs of their “protectible liberty interest in their continued military service” and “a protectible property interest in their…benefits upon retirement that they have earned.” The defendants have failed to provide the plaintiffs with procedural protection, violating the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment. 

Other lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s attack on transgender rights include Talbott v. Trump, PFLAG v. Trump, and Doe v. McHenry III. Doe v. McHenry III, a lawsuit against Trump’s executive order forcing transgender women inmates to sleep with male inmates and halting all gender transitioning treatments, was issued a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Prisons. The court ruled that the Executive Order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,”violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Ending DEI Programs

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official…can prescribe what shall be orthodox…or force citizens to confess…their faith therein,” begins National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) et al. v. Trump, quoting West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett. On February 3rd, 2025, NADOHE sued the President for violating the constitutional right to free speech, due process, and the separation of powers. Under “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunities” (J21), the qualifications for illegal DEI programs are undefined and what constitutes as DEI is vague. The lawsuit cited United States v. Williams, articulating that the government should “provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,” articulating that the Constitution’s demand of clarity under the Due Process Clause.

According to the Fifth Amendment, citizens are owed clarity in the laws they are meant to abide by. Russell K. Robinson, Berkeley Law professor specializing in anti-discrimination and constitution law, articulates that “the orders are so vague that they chill speech and they chill actions.” Without a clear definition of what constitutes “illegal DEI programs,” many are left “unsure if they’re in violation of the executive order or not,” said Robinson. According to the lawsuit, the vagueness also gives power to the attorney general to act carte blanche in implementing the directive by his discretion, halting DEI programs including those without federal funding. 

The prohibition of DEI programming enforced through threats of investigation and federal grant freezes—as articulated by “Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” (J20)— tramples on the fundamental, constitutional right to free speech and expression. Under order J20, federal agencies and relevant organizations, including the Plaintiffs, face the termination of all federal grants that fund the promotion of equity and DEI initiatives.

The Free Speech Clause under the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech on the basis of opinion and viewpoint. While the President can hold any belief he wishes, to punish any who expresses dissent against his viewpoints violates the constitutional right of freedom of expression. By threatening investigation of institutions and programs that indicate insubordination to the executive orders, the President and subsequent enforcement officials “penalizes the speech” of the Plaintiffs on the basis of opinionated dissent. According to the lawsuit, the First Amendment guarantees protection to scholars, teachers, and researchers to think, teach, research, and express their ideas and values without government intervention.

However, the vagueness of what constitutes “illegal DEIA and DEIA politics” leaves NADOHE et al. weighing the option of  suppressing their values and beliefs to comply with the directive in spite of their First Amendment rights or “face prosecution for making false claims.” According to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the government has no right to force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Similarly, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. struck down the requirement for nonprofit organizations to oppose “un-favored politics” in order to receive federal funding. Essentially, President Donald Trump’s executive order not only violates the constitutional right to free speech, but fails to heed precedents set by the courts. 

According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the power of the purse rests exclusively in the hands of Congress. To unilaterally threaten to freeze federal funding and grants relating to DEI is not only suppressing free speech through coercion, but is ultra vires. According to the lawsuit, while the executive order vaguely suggests an adherence to the law, a simple statement of abiding to the law does not evade judicial review. 

As of February 21, 2025, Judge Adam Abelson ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a preliminary injunction blocking the actions detailed by executive order J21. 

The Future of American Democracy

While lawsuits are pending in court, Judges have already ordered a halt to various executive orders. It is clear that the president is violating the constitution by attempting to dismantle DEI initiatives that have ensured the promotion and protection of diverse workplaces, places of education ceases operation. As the President continues institutionalized social boundaries and stationing himself above the law, the United States will continue to descend into populist authoritarianism. 

It is still unclear whether or not Trump will abide by court ruling. Vice President J.D. Vance posted on X, announcing that “Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power,” claiming that it is illegal for the courts to rule on actions executed by military officials and attorney generals. The President subsequently posted statements on X declaring “He who saves his Country does not violate any law” and “Long Live the King,” followed by the White House circulating the statement with an illustration of the President wearing a crown.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law and constitutional scholar, emphasizes how the courts are likely to check the illegal actions of the Trump administration. However, he stresses how rather than checking the President, the Republican majority in Congress have been silent, enabling the administration’s undermining of the constitution and the rule of law. On the floor of the House of Representatives, Representatives Melanie Stransbury asks during a speech, “where are my republican colleagues?” She notes how the republican side of the chambers is empty, alleging that they are in a closed door meeting assembling a tax package that gives billionaires tax breaks.

The inability of Republicans to check the President and hold their party accountable represents their lack of respect they have for the rule of law, says Representative Stransbury. However the courts rule, President Trump “must comply with court orders just as everyone else has to comply with court order,” says Chemerinsky. 

Based on his recent statements of kinghood and being above the rule of law, President Trump challenges the democratic safeguard of America’s institutions, heeding the path of autocracy. Many fear that Trump will not heed the order of the court. In the San Francisco Chronicle, Chemerinsky articulates that “if a president violates court orders and there is no accountability, we no longer are in a constitutional democracy but under a dictatorship.” Marice Ashe, Berkeley Law lecturer, echoes a similar sentiment, stating that it will be “a breaking point and the legitimacy of our institutions will be in crisis.”

Due to the Supreme Court’s unprecedented rulings in recent history, it remains speculative whether they will even rule against him or not. 29 lower courts have already blocked some of President Trump’s executive orders. However, “this is not a normal court,” says President Joe Biden after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action, rolling back years of precedent and the commitment to equal opportunity in higher education. When the Supreme Court granted the president immunity, President Biden stated that the decision was the continuation of “the court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long established legal principles in our nation,” referring to the Dobbs decisions and stricter voting laws. 

With the Roberts Court consisting of six conservative justices and their history of unprecedented rulings, it remains unclear whether the Supreme Court will continue their trend of unprecedented interpretations of the constitution in favor of the President or not. According to Russell K. Robinson, Berkeley Law Professor specializing in anti-discrimination law and constitution law, the Roberts Court have “not appli[ed] the law in a way that is predictable and consistent with precedent,” decreasing the “confidence that the courts will resolve these cases in an unbiased way.”

It is apparent that the President is attempting to strip power from Congress, through attempts at freezing federal funds, and the courts. However, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not they want to “surrender some of its own authority to allow Trump to violate existing precedent,” says Robinson. Therefore, the question of whether the Supreme Court rules in favor of or against the President remains a “mixed bag,” where in some cases, the court may rule in favor of Trump while in others, they rule against him simply to reaffirm its “own role as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.” However, Ashe emphasizes that “whatever decision the Supreme Court makes, it MUST be grounded in the constitution.”

Attacking the democratic safeguards by stripping democratic institutions of its power are all characteristics of authoritarian populism. President Trump discriminates against minority establishments through his implementation of anti-DEI executive orders. He does not hesitate to call himself a King nor does he hesitate to heighten himself above the law. The rulings of the Supreme Court, with a majority appointed by Republicans or Trump, remain uncertain. What is abundantly clear, however, is Trump’s holistic embodiment of an autocratic populist. He has undermined the rule of mine, regurgitated anti-democratic rhetoric, and institutionalized discriminatory prejudices. Trump’s continued effort to violate the rule of law, dismantle democratic institutions, and strip civil rights demonstrates his embodiment of populism and authoritarianism. 

Conclusion

While lawsuits are pending in court, Judges have already ordered to halt the actions articulated by President Trump’s executive orders. It is clear that the president is violating the constitution by attempting to dismantle DEI initiatives that have ensured the promotion and protection of diverse workplaces, places of education ceases operation. By banning DEI-related programs, the President erodes civil rights, access to federal funds, private research, and the legal precedent, with medical research promoted by DEI, including research of underrepresented groups, and diverse hiring practices coming under threat. 

As the lawsuits against the executive order traverse their way through federal courts, whether Trump adheres to court order remains unclear. Violating fundamental constitutional rights, including the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments, the lower federal courts have already granted temporary injunctions against executive orders threatening to withhold federal funding and laying off federal workers. However, the administration has already appealed cases many times and some to the Supreme Court. Whether or not the Supreme Court decides to involve themselves in these cases is a matter of maintaining their own power while granting Trump increased authority. As the President continues to institutionalize social boundaries and stationing himself above the law, the United States will continue to descend into populist authoritarianism.

Image Source: White House Twitter