As president Trump rolls back DEI, some UK employers might see the changes as justification to reduce their own DEI investments. Given the UK’s strong legal protections, how much of a ripple effect could we see? Melissa Carr, director of EDI in the World of Work Institute Henley Business School and lecturer in International Human Resource Management, explores the impact of US changes.
The dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes across federal institutions since President Trump’s inauguration has been swift. By putting DEI staff on leave and rolling back on DEI initiatives, Trump has called for an end to what he describes as “dangerous, demeaning and immoral” programmes.
Supporters of Trump’s approach advocate for a so-called colour-blind, merit based society. They argue that DEI gives preference to marginalised groups, threatening hiring, promotion and educational opportunities of white people – particularly white men.
However, the pledge to create a merit-based society overlooks the ways workplace inequalities persist even in supposedly impartial systems. Historical and systemic barriers continue to influence workplace outcomes. Simply declaring a system merit-based does not automatically ensure equal opportunities.
Organisations that claim to be purely merit-based often unconsciously perpetuate existing biases through informal networks, subjective evaluation criteria, and cultural assumptions about what constitutes merit.
Critics argue that DEI programmes undermine merit-based decision-making, yet well-designed DEI initiatives can actually enhance fairness by expanding talent pools, reducing unconscious bias in evaluation processes, and establishing more objective criteria for career progression. DEI programmes enable organisations to identify and develop talent that might otherwise be overlooked in traditional systems.
For US federal employees, the dismantling of DEI programmes represents a significant shift in workplace culture and support systems. Many rely on these initiatives for professional development, mentorship and for addressing workplace concerns. Eliminating DEI offices and training programmes could leave employees without the formal channels to address discrimination or bias, potentially creating a more challenging work environment for underrepresented groups. The dismantling of these support structures may also impact on employee morale and job satisfaction.
Will these changes spark a similar trend in the UK?
In reality, corporate pullbacks from DEI have already been happening. Following the Black Lives Matter movement, many companies hired chief diversity officers. Yet just a few years on, that role has become precarious with some organisations such as Netflix and Warner Bros scrapping it.
The political context legitimises this shift and some UK employers might view the federal rollbacks as justification to reduce their own DEI investments. Business leaders who do not support DEI now have greater political cover to roll back on those policies without facing much scrutiny.
While Trump’s policies will undoubtedly have a ripple effect in Britain, the UK does have stronger legal frameworks in place, such as the Equality Act 2010, which places specific obligations on employers to promote equality and prevent discrimination. Additionally, the broader public acceptance of equal opportunity principles in the UK may provide some further resistance.
British companies with significant US operations or partnerships may need to carefully navigate increasingly different approaches to workplace diversity, leading to more complex policy environments within multinational organisations.
The international business community should view recent US federal policy changes with caution. Cultural experience and diverse perspectives are increasingly valuable for international markets and businesses that fail to recognise this may well find themselves at a disadvantage.
