The Claim

Eliminated race- and sex-based hiring preferences across the executive branch.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That the executive branch previously had hiring preferences based on race and sex, and that the Trump administration eliminated them. The phrase “race- and sex-based hiring preferences” implies a system where candidates were selected or favored because of their demographic characteristics rather than their qualifications.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That federal hiring was rigged — that people of certain races or sexes received preferential treatment in government employment. That this was a widespread, systemic practice requiring presidential intervention. That the action created a new merit-based system where none existed before. The framing implies something close to racial and gender quotas, even though quotas have been illegal in federal hiring since the Supreme Court’s Bakke decision in 1978.

What is conspicuously absent?

Any specification of what “hiring preferences” actually existed. Any acknowledgment that the federal merit system has been the law since 1883 (Pendleton Act) and was codified with explicit anti-discrimination protections in 1978 (Civil Service Reform Act). Any mention that OFCCP regulations explicitly prohibited quotas and preferential treatment. Any recognition that this is the same action described in item 221 — the DEI executive orders signed January 20-21, 2025. The entire claim depends on the premise that “race- and sex-based hiring preferences” existed, but no evidence is offered for that premise.

Padding Analysis: Restatement of Item 221’s DEI Elimination

This claim describes the same executive orders and actions covered in item 221 (“Eliminated discriminatory ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ offices, employees, and practices across the bureaucracy alongside a return to merit-based hiring and promotion”). The underlying executive orders are identical: EO 14151 (ending DEI programs), EO 14173 (revoking EO 11246 and ending contractor affirmative action), and EO 14170 (reforming federal hiring). Where item 221 frames the action as eliminating “discriminatory DEI offices” and restoring “merit-based hiring,” item 222 reframes the same action as eliminating “race- and sex-based hiring preferences.” The actions, dates, executive orders, and implementing agencies are all the same. The only difference is the rhetorical angle: item 221 targets “DEI” as the problem; item 222 targets “race- and sex-based preferences.”

This is a textbook example of the padding lens: taking a single action and describing it from multiple angles to inflate the “wins” count.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The executive orders cited for this claim are identical to those in item 221. EO 14151 (January 20, 2025) terminated DEI programs government-wide. EO 14173 (January 21, 2025) revoked EO 11246, the 60-year-old affirmative action framework for federal contractors. EO 14170 (January 20, 2025) directed OPM to develop a merit-based hiring plan. These are the same three executive orders that underpin item 221’s claim about eliminating DEI offices. No additional executive orders, memoranda, or regulations are associated with this claim. ¹

Federal hiring has been governed by the merit system since 1883, with explicit anti-discrimination protections since 1978. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 established competitive examinations for federal hiring. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 2301) codified nine Merit System Principles, including that “recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society” and that “all employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition.” DEI programs operated alongside this framework, not instead of it. ²

Racial and gender quotas in federal hiring have been illegal since 1978. The Supreme Court’s Bakke decision (1978) prohibited rigid racial quotas in government institutions. OFCCP’s affirmative action regulations for federal contractors explicitly stated that “placement goals are not quotas” and that contractors “cannot use them to extend a hiring or promotion preference to any individual.” The regulations further specified that “quotas or set-asides are illegal.” There is no documented evidence that federal agencies operated hiring quotas or racial/gender preferences in violation of these longstanding prohibitions. ³

The Luevano consent decree — the closest thing to a race-conscious federal hiring mandate — was dissolved on August 1, 2025, seven months after the January executive orders. The 1981 consent decree in Luevano v. Campbell required the federal government to replace the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) — which had a 42% pass rate for white applicants versus 5% for Black applicants — with alternative assessment methods that reduced adverse impact. The DOJ moved to dissolve it in 2025, and the court dismissed the case on August 1, 2025. This was a separate legal action from the January 2025 executive orders, though part of the same policy agenda. ⁴

The OPM Merit Hiring Plan (May 29, 2025) banned agencies from collecting or disseminating workforce demographic data on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. This eliminates the ability to measure whether the federal workforce reflects the available labor pool — the primary mechanism by which hiring discrimination has historically been detected. The plan also requires political essay questions about “patriotism” and “founding principles” for all GS-05+ applicants. ⁵

Strong Inferences

The phrase “race- and sex-based hiring preferences” is a political characterization, not a description of documented practices. No federal court, inspector general, GAO report, or OPM audit has found that federal agencies operated “race- and sex-based hiring preferences.” The Biden-era DEIA executive orders (EO 13985 and EO 14035) directed agencies to create strategic plans, appoint chief diversity officers, and collect equity data — process-oriented directives, not preferential hiring mandates. The OPM’s own post-purge guidance references “illegal, demeaning, and immoral DEI programs” but cites no specific examples of racial or gender preferences in federal hiring. ⁶

Eliminating demographic data collection while claiming to eliminate “preferences” creates an accountability gap. If the concern is that hiring decisions were influenced by race or sex, the solution would be to increase transparency and monitoring. Instead, the administration banned the collection of the data that would reveal discriminatory patterns in either direction. This makes it impossible to verify whether the new system produces more equitable outcomes — or less. ⁷

What the Evidence Shows

This item restates item 221 using different rhetoric. The executive orders are the same (EO 14151, EO 14173, EO 14170), the dates are the same (January 20-21, 2025), and the implementing actions are the same. Where item 221 frames the story as eliminating “discriminatory DEI offices,” item 222 reframes it as eliminating “race- and sex-based hiring preferences.” Both descriptions are attached to a single cluster of executive orders signed within 24 hours.

The more revealing question is whether “race- and sex-based hiring preferences” actually existed in the executive branch. The answer is: not in any documented, systematic form. Federal hiring has been governed by the merit system since the Pendleton Act of 1883, with codified anti-discrimination protections since 1978. Quotas have been illegal since Bakke (1978). OFCCP’s own regulations explicitly prohibited quotas and preferential treatment. The Biden-era DEIA executive orders directed agencies to create strategic plans and appoint diversity officers — they did not direct agencies to prefer candidates based on race or sex.

The one arguable exception was the Luevano consent decree, which since 1981 required the government to use hiring assessments that did not produce severe racial disparities. But the decree did not mandate racial preferences — it required that testing instruments be validated and not produce unjustified adverse impact, consistent with Title VII. And its dissolution came on August 1, 2025, as a separate legal action, not through the January executive orders.

What the administration actually did was eliminate DEI infrastructure (offices, officers, trainings, data collection) and affirmative action obligations for contractors. These are real policy changes. But describing them as eliminating “race- and sex-based hiring preferences” mischaracterizes what was eliminated. The programs that were terminated were primarily about data collection, strategic planning, outreach, and training — not about giving hiring preferences to candidates of particular races or sexes. Meanwhile, the replacement “merit” system introduces its own non-merit-based criterion: political essay questions about patriotism and the president’s agenda.

The Bottom Line

Steel-man acknowledgment: The administration genuinely eliminated affirmative action obligations for federal contractors (via revoking EO 11246), dissolved the Luevano consent decree (which had governed federal testing since 1981), and banned the collection of workforce demographic data. These are consequential policy changes that altered how the federal government approaches workforce composition. If one defines any race- or sex-conscious policy as a “preference,” then the administration eliminated preferences.

However, this is padding of item 221 — the identical executive orders described from a different rhetorical angle to count a single action twice. The framing is also misleading: “race- and sex-based hiring preferences” implies quotas or preferential treatment that have been illegal in federal hiring for nearly five decades. What was actually eliminated was DEI infrastructure, contractor compliance programs, and demographic data collection — not a system that was selecting candidates based on race or sex. The administration simultaneously introduced its own non-merit criterion (political essay questions) while banning the data collection that would reveal whether the new system produces fair outcomes. The action is real; the description is a straw man.

Footnotes

1. White House, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” (EO 14151), January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/; White House, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (EO 14173), January 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/; White House, “Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service” (EO 14170), January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reforming-the-federal-hiring-process-and-restoring-merit-to-government-service/ ↩

2. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 2301 (Merit System Principles). https://www.mspb.gov/msp/FAQ.htm; EEOC, “Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.” https://www.eeoc.gov/history/civil-service-reform-act-1978 ↩

3. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); Cooley LLP, “New Executive Order Would Terminate Race and Gender Affirmative Action Requirements for Federal Contractors,” January 23, 2025. https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2025/2025-01-23-new-executive-order-would-terminate-race-and-gender-affirmative-action-requirements-for-federal-contractors ↩

4. Antioch Herald, “44-year-old federal race-based hiring mandate named for Antioch resident ends,” August 2025. https://antiochherald.com/2025/08/exclusive-44-year-old-federal-race-based-hiring-mandate-named-for-antioch-resident-ends/; UPI, “Justice Department ends 44-year consent decree on civil service exams,” August 4, 2025. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/08/04/justice-department-ends-consent-decree-civil-service-exams/2831754352408/; FedSmith, “Race, Politics, Merit, Luevano Decree And Hiring Federal Employees,” August 13, 2025. https://www.fedsmith.com/2025/08/13/race-politics-luevano-decree/ ↩

5. OPM, “Merit Hiring Plan,” May 29, 2025. https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2025/Merit%20Hiring%20Plan%205-29-2025%20FINAL.pdf; Government Executive, “OPM ‘merit’ hiring plan includes bipartisan reforms, politicized new test,” May 2025. https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/05/opm-merit-hiring-plan-includes-bipartisan-reforms-politicized-new-test/405687/ ↩

6. CRS Report R48080, “Executive Order 14035 Implementation: DEIA in the Federal Workforce.” https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48080; FedSmith, “From DEI to Meritocracy: The Federal Government’s Shift in Hiring Practices,” May 30, 2025. https://www.fedsmith.com/2025/05/30/from-dei-to-meritocracy-the-federal-governments-shift-in-hiring-practices/ ↩

7. OPM Merit Hiring Plan, Section on demographic data: agencies required to “cease collecting and disseminating statistics regarding the composition of the agency’s workforce based on race, sex, color, religion or national origin.” https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/transmittals/2025/Merit%20Hiring%20Plan%205-29-2025%20FINAL.pdf ↩