In Union County, South Carolina, once known for its cotton mills, economic hardships have left lasting challenges. The area is classified as a “food desert,” where many residents struggle to access fresh groceries. In 2016, local non-profit director Elise Ashby stepped in, partnering with farmers to deliver discounted boxes of farm-fresh produce to those in need. Relying initially on personal savings and small grants, she received a breakthrough in 2023—a $100,000 grant from the Walmart Foundation, part of a $1.5 million initiative supporting community-based non-profits led by people of color. For Ashby, it was more than just funding; it was validation.
This kind of corporate support was once commonplace in the wake of the racial reckoning following George Floyd’s murder in 2020. Companies rushed to embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with giants like Walmart, Meta, and McDonald’s making bold commitments. Walmart alone pledged $100 million over five years toward racial equity. Hiring practices were adjusted, and in a major shift, the S&P 100 added over 300,000 jobs, with 94% of those going to people of color.
But the momentum has reversed. DEI initiatives are being dismantled across corporate America, with companies retreating under mounting legal and political pressure. In November, Walmart announced it was shutting down its Center for Racial Equity—the very program that funded Ashby’s work. Similar rollbacks followed at Google, Goldman Sachs, and others. Fear of lawsuits, backlash from conservative activists, and increasing scrutiny from the government have made DEI a liability rather than a selling point.
Since taking office in January, Donald Trump has aggressively sought to eliminate DEI, framing it as a barrier to “merit-based opportunity.” Federal agencies have shuttered DEI offices, with hundreds of employees placed on leave. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious college admissions added fuel to the fire, casting doubt on the legality of corporate DEI policies. Companies like Meta have justified their DEI cutbacks by citing the “changing legal landscape.”
This shift is the culmination of years of growing conservative opposition. Critics argue DEI fosters division, prioritizing race and gender over qualifications. The backlash gained traction during the movement against critical race theory, evolving into a broader fight against what opponents call “woke corporations.” Social media campaigns targeting companies perceived as too progressive—such as the Bud Light boycott over a partnership with a transgender influencer—have shown the power of public outrage.
Despite the decline of DEI in name, some experts suggest these initiatives are not disappearing but rather being rebranded. Corporations are adjusting their language, swapping “DEI” for terms like “belonging” and “inclusive leadership.” Walmart, for example, renamed its chief diversity officer as the chief belonging officer. McDonald’s transformed its Global DEI Center of Excellence into the Global Inclusion Team. Fortune 500 companies may be moving away from overt DEI messaging, but nearly all still list diversity commitments somewhere on their websites.
The effectiveness of DEI remains a point of debate. Research has shown that traditional diversity training often fails to produce meaningful change and can even generate resentment. Critics argue that true progress cannot be achieved through corporate policies alone, pointing instead to free-market solutions. However, supporters insist that systemic barriers persist and require structured intervention. Studies consistently find that racial and gender biases still influence hiring, promotions, and pay. A 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that employers contacted white-sounding applicants 9.5% more often than Black applicants, even when résumés were identical.
The impact of the anti-DEI movement is particularly visible in education. Harvard Law School reported a dramatic decline in Black and Hispanic first-year students following the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling. Yet, at other universities, racial diversity has increased—not through race-conscious policies, but through socioeconomic-based admissions. Dartmouth, for instance, saw a rise in Hispanic enrollment after expanding financial aid. This shift suggests that while explicit DEI policies are under fire, their goals may still be achievable under a different framework.
As corporations and institutions adjust, the future of DEI remains uncertain. Some argue that removing the label doesn’t necessarily mean removing the intent. Others fear that without accountability, progress will stall. As Michelle Jolivet, author of Is DEI Dead?, warns, “Things that matter are measured. When you stop measuring them, they stop happening.”
For Elise Ashby, these shifts are more than political—they’re personal. The Walmart grant allowed her to expand a program that directly improved lives in a struggling community. Now, she faces an uncertain future, worrying about whether she will once again be left searching for funding. “Am I concerned about the future?” she says. “Absolutely.”
