The Claim

Forced a host of companies, including Disney and Goldman Sachs, to end harmful, woke, and discriminatory DEI practices.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That the Trump administration “forced” private companies — specifically Disney and Goldman Sachs, among others — to end DEI practices, and that those practices were “harmful, woke, and discriminatory.” The word “forced” claims a direct causal mechanism: government action compelled private corporations to change their internal policies.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That the government had the legal authority and the effective power to compel private companies’ internal employment and governance decisions. That DEI practices at Disney and Goldman Sachs were unlawful. That these companies ended DEI because of government action rather than other factors. That this constitutes a “win” for good governance — listed in a section about “making government work for the people.”

What is conspicuously absent?

That no law was passed and no enforcement action was completed against any private company for DEI practices. That Disney and Goldman Sachs made voluntary, partial adjustments to their DEI programs — not wholesale elimination. That Goldman Sachs explicitly attributed its IPO diversity policy change to a December 2024 Fifth Circuit court ruling striking down Nasdaq’s board diversity rule, not to executive action. That the corporate DEI rollback trend began in mid-2023 after the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, accelerated through 2024 by activist Robby Starbuck’s pressure campaigns, and predated Trump’s executive orders. That many major companies — Costco, Apple, Microsoft — rejected anti-DEI pressure and maintained their programs. That the government’s enforcement theories (False Claims Act for contractor DEI, FCC investigations of media companies) are legally novel, have not produced penalties, and face serious First Amendment obstacles. That this claim substantially overlaps with items 221 and 222, which cover the same executive orders.

Overlap with Items 221 and 222

This claim extends the DEI cluster (items 221 and 222) from federal agencies to the private sector. The underlying executive order — EO 14173 — is identical. Items 221 and 222 focus on government-side implementation; this item claims credit for private-sector effects. The distinction is meaningful in scope but the legal mechanism is the same executive order, making this a third claim derived from a single policy action.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

Disney made partial adjustments to its DEI programs in February 2025, but did not eliminate them. On February 11, 2025, Disney’s CHRO Sonia Coleman announced several changes: replacing the “Diversity & Inclusion” performance factor in executive compensation with a broader “Talent Strategy” factor; ending the Reimagine Tomorrow initiative (launched 2021); rebranding Business Employee Resource Groups as “Belonging” Employee Resource Groups; and modifying streaming content disclaimers. Disney retained its diversity programs under different branding, maintained employee resource groups, and kept its “Belong” framework. The changes were described by analysts as “less dramatic than those introduced by other Fortune 500 companies.” ¹

Goldman Sachs dropped its IPO board diversity requirement in February 2025, citing a court ruling — not executive action. Goldman Sachs had required since 2020 that companies it took public in the US or Western Europe include at least two diverse board members. The bank ended this policy in February 2025, with a spokesperson attributing the change to “legal developments related to board diversity requirements” — a reference to the Fifth Circuit’s December 11, 2024 ruling in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, which struck down Nasdaq’s similar diversity disclosure rule. Goldman separately dropped DEI criteria from its own board evaluations and in February 2026 removed DEI metrics from board selection. However, Goldman Sachs shareholders rejected anti-DEI proposals by a 98-2 margin in 2025, and the bank stated it continues to believe “successful boards benefit from diverse backgrounds and perspectives.” ²

The corporate DEI rollback trend began in 2023 and accelerated through 2024, well before Trump’s executive orders. The Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling in SFFA v. Harvard — striking down affirmative action in college admissions — triggered a wave of corporate DEI reassessment. Conservative activist Robby Starbuck launched targeted pressure campaigns against individual companies starting mid-2024: John Deere (July 2024), Harley-Davidson and Lowe’s (August 2024), Molson Coors and Caterpillar (September 2024), Toyota (October 2024), Boeing and Walmart (November 2024), Nissan (December 2024), McDonald’s and Target (January 2025). These rollbacks occurred before Trump’s January 20, 2025 inauguration. PwC dropped diversity procurement goals in January 2024. Ford began its DEI retreat in 2023. ³

EO 14173 directed the Attorney General to investigate private-sector DEI, and AG Bondi issued enforcement directives in February 2025. EO 14173 (January 21, 2025) directed the Attorney General to prepare a report identifying “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” of major corporations, non-profits, and universities. On February 5, 2025, AG Pam Bondi issued a memorandum directing the DOJ Civil Rights Division to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector.” The memo warned of potential criminal investigations for public companies. In May 2025, DOJ announced the “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative,” embracing the theory that holding a federal contract while maintaining DEI programs constitutes fraud under the False Claims Act. ⁴

As of March 2026, no private company has been fined, penalized, or successfully prosecuted for DEI practices under these enforcement theories. The DOJ has issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to companies across technology, telecommunications, automotive, defense, and pharmaceutical sectors, but no enforcement action has produced a penalty or settlement. Recent federal court decisions have quashed some DOJ administrative subpoenas in DEI-focused False Claims Act investigations, providing a roadmap for companies to resist. The legal theory that maintaining DEI programs while holding federal contracts constitutes False Claims Act fraud remains untested in court. ⁵

The FCC opened DEI investigations into Disney/ABC (March 2025) and Comcast/NBCUniversal (February 2025), using regulatory authority as pressure. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr directed the Enforcement Bureau to investigate Disney and ABC, citing concerns that Disney’s Reimagine Tomorrow initiative and ABC’s inclusion standards requiring “50% of regular and recurring characters” from “underrepresented groups” may violate FCC equal employment opportunity regulations. These investigations represent a novel use of FCC authority; the FCC has not traditionally regulated content diversity goals or internal hiring policies of licensees in this manner. No enforcement action has resulted. ⁶

A federal court initially blocked the private-sector enforcement provisions of EO 14173. On February 21, 2025, a district court in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking EO 14173’s contractor certification requirement and private-sector enforcement provisions, finding they constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First and Fifth Amendments. The Fourth Circuit stayed the injunction on March 14, 2025, allowing enforcement to proceed pending appeal. Multiple parallel lawsuits remain active. ⁷

Strong Inferences

The word “forced” mischaracterizes the causal mechanism. Disney and Goldman Sachs made voluntary corporate decisions, driven primarily by a combination of factors: the changing legal landscape (SFFA v. Harvard, the Nasdaq ruling), activist pressure campaigns (Starbuck), political climate, and — to some degree — the threat of government investigation. But “forced” implies a completed enforcement action — a legal order, penalty, or binding directive. No such action was taken against any private company named or unnamed. The government created a threatening environment; companies made strategic decisions within it. The distinction between coercive atmosphere and legal compulsion matters: the First Amendment protects private companies’ internal policies from direct government control. ⁸

Most companies reframed rather than abandoned DEI. The Conference Board’s 2025 report on S&P 100 companies found that while 53% adjusted DEI messaging in filings and use of the “DEI” acronym dropped 68%, only 21% reduced or removed DEI metrics and targets. Board-level DEI oversight actually increased from 72% to 79% of S&P 500 firms. Companies shifted language from “DEI” to “belonging,” “talent strategy,” or “human capital management” while maintaining many underlying programs. A Resume.org survey found only 5% of companies with DEI programs actually eliminated them entirely, and 1 in 3 companies that rolled back DEI were quietly reinstating programs. ⁹

Several major companies publicly rejected anti-DEI pressure, undermining the “forced” narrative. Costco shareholders voted 98% to reject a proposal to evaluate risks of DEI programs. Apple’s board recommended shareholders reject anti-DEI proposals. Microsoft, Patagonia, Delta Air Lines, and Salesforce publicly reaffirmed DEI commitments. Companies that maintained DEI commitments saw reputation scores rise by an average of 1.5 points in 2025. Costco’s sales continued growing while explicitly maintaining its DEI framework. The existence of significant corporate resistance demonstrates that the government did not “force” compliance — it created pressure that some companies yielded to and others rejected. ¹⁰

What the Evidence Shows

The Trump administration did pursue an aggressive campaign to discourage private-sector DEI through multiple channels: EO 14173’s directive for DOJ investigations, the AG’s enforcement memoranda, the False Claims Act fraud theory for federal contractors, and FCC investigations of media companies. These are real governmental actions that created a genuinely threatening environment for corporate DEI programs.

But the claim that the government “forced” companies to end DEI practices is misleading on every significant dimension.

First, the timeline. The corporate DEI rollback began eighteen months before Trump’s executive orders. The Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling was the original catalyst. Robby Starbuck’s 2024 pressure campaigns prompted rollbacks at more than a dozen major companies before Trump took office. Disney and Goldman Sachs announced their changes in February 2025, within weeks of the executive orders, but their adjustments tracked decisions already underway across corporate America. Goldman Sachs explicitly cited the Fifth Circuit’s December 2024 ruling — not executive action — as its reason for ending the IPO diversity pledge.

Second, the mechanism. “Forced” implies a completed enforcement action. As of March 2026, no private company has been fined, penalized, or prosecuted for DEI practices. The DOJ’s False Claims Act theory remains untested. Courts quashed some CIDs. The FCC investigations produced no enforcement actions. A federal court found the private-sector enforcement provisions of EO 14173 unconstitutionally vague and discriminatory (though the appellate court allowed enforcement to proceed pending appeal). The government created threats and initiated investigations; it did not “force” anything.

Third, the characterization. Disney did not “end” DEI — it rebranded programs, adjusted compensation metrics, and shut down one initiative while maintaining employee resource groups, diversity hiring goals under different names, and a “Belong” framework. Goldman Sachs dropped one IPO requirement and board evaluation criteria but reaffirmed its belief in board diversity and saw shareholders reject anti-DEI proposals 98-2. Across the S&P 100, the dominant pattern was reframing — changing labels while preserving programs — not elimination. And major companies including Costco, Apple, and Microsoft publicly refused to comply.

Finally, the placement. This claim appears in “Making Government Work for the People,” but describes the government using investigation threats, regulatory pressure, and novel legal theories to influence private companies’ internal employment and governance decisions. Whether this makes government “work for the people” depends on whether one views the government’s proper role as extending to policing private companies’ voluntary diversity programs — a question the First Amendment has traditionally answered in the negative.

The Bottom Line

Steel-man acknowledgment: The Trump administration pursued a genuinely multi-pronged campaign against private-sector DEI, using executive orders, DOJ investigations, False Claims Act theories, and FCC regulatory pressure. This campaign contributed to an environment in which many companies scaled back or rebranded their DEI programs. Disney and Goldman Sachs did make real changes to their DEI practices in 2025. The administration can legitimately claim that its actions accelerated a trend already in progress.

But “forced” is the wrong word, and the claim inflates the government’s role while deflating everyone else’s. The corporate DEI rollback was driven primarily by the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, Robby Starbuck’s 2024 activist campaigns, shareholder pressure, and the broader political climate — not by government enforcement, which has not produced a single penalty against a single private company. Disney and Goldman Sachs made voluntary, partial adjustments — not the wholesale elimination the claim implies. Major companies publicly refused to comply, proving the government lacked the power to “force” the outcome it claims. The administration created a threatening atmosphere; it did not compel compliance. Calling this “forced” is like a person standing near a parade claiming they led it.

Footnotes

1. Axios, “Exclusive: Disney makes changes to DEI programs and rebrands employee groups,” February 11, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/02/11/disney-dei-changes-trump-era; Deadline, “Disney Overhauls DEI Efforts Amid Trump Administration Purge,” February 2025. https://deadline.com/2025/02/disney-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-president-donald-trump-1236285804/; HR Grapevine, “Did Disney just ditch DEI, or only the small print?” February 12, 2025. https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/content/article/2025-02-12-did-disney-just-ditch-dei-or-just-the-small-print ↩

2. Fortune, “Goldman Sachs abandons IPO diversity pledge with U.S. DEI goals under fire,” February 12, 2025. https://fortune.com/2025/02/12/goldman-sachs-abandons-ipo-diversity-pledge-us-dei-goals-under-fire/; Washington Post, “Goldman Sachs ends DEI policy on boardroom diversity,” February 12, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/12/goldman-sachs-dei-policy-boardroom/; Fortune, “Goldman Sachs scraps DEI criteria for its board as the business case for boardroom diversity only grows more compelling,” February 18, 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/02/18/goldman-sachs-board-dei-criteria-business-case-diversity/; ESG Dive, “More anti-DEI shareholder proposals fail at Goldman Sachs, Levi’s,” 2025. https://www.esgdive.com/news/more-anti-dei-shareholder-proposals-fail-at-goldman-sachs-levis/746460/ ↩

3. CNN, “Robby Starbuck, the right-wing activist riding a wave of opposition to DEI,” August 28, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/28/business/dei-john-deere-harley-davidson-robby-starbuck/index.html; Washington Post, “Robby Starbuck waged war on corporate DEI. Trump’s win could add momentum,” November 15, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/11/15/robby-starbuck-corporate-dei/; Axios, “Which companies are rolling back DEI and which are standing firm,” January 16, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/01/16/dei-rollback-companies-amazon-meta-mcdonalds ↩

4. 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/; Brownstein, “Bondi: DOJ Will Investigate Private-Sector DEI,” February 2025. https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/bondi-doj-will-investigate-private-sector-dei; Epstein Becker Green, “DOJ’s Use of False Claims Act to Challenge DEI Moves from Theory to Practice,” 2025. https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/dojs-use-of-false-claims-act-to-challenge-dei-moves-from-theory-to-practice-what-businesses-need-to-know ↩

5. WilmerHale, “Recent Decisions Quashing DOJ Administrative Subpoenas Provide a Roadmap for Companies Facing DEI-Focused False Claims Act Investigations,” January 2026. https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20260112-recent-decisions-quashing-doj-administrative-subpoenas-provide-a-roadmap-for-companies-facing-dei-focused-false-claims-act-investigations; Mayer Brown, “DOJ Pursues DEI Investigations of Federal Contractors,” January 2026. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/01/doj-pursues-dei-investigations-of-federal-contractors; Venable, “DOJ False Claims Investigations Reported for DEI Initiatives,” December 2025. https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/12/doj-false-claims-investigations-reported-for-dei ↩

6. NPR, “FCC chair opens investigation into Disney and ABC over DEI practices,” March 29, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/29/nx-s1-5344469/fcc-disney-dei-changes-abc; Fortune, “FCC chairman orders DEI investigation into Disney, ABC,” March 29, 2025. https://fortune.com/2025/03/29/fcc-chairman-brendan-carr-dei-investigation-disney-abc-bob-iger/; CNN, “Trump administration has a new way to pressure companies to ditch DEI,” March 26, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/26/business/dei-fcc-media/index.html ↩

7. NADOHE v. Trump (D. Md.), preliminary injunction February 21, 2025; Fourth Circuit stay March 14, 2025. See analysis item 221 for full citation chain. ↩

8. Epstein Becker Green, “Executive Order 14173: How Public Companies’ DEI Initiatives May Be Targeted,” 2025. https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/publications/executive-order-14173-how-public-companies-dei-initiatives-may-be-targeted-and-key-actions-to-take-now; Skadden, “DEI Under Siege: A Guide to the Trump Executive Orders,” February 2025. https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/02/the-informed-board/dei-under-siege ↩

9. The Conference Board, “DEI in Transition: 2025 Corporate Diversity Disclosure Trends,” August 2025. https://www.conference-board.org/publications/DEI-in-transition-2025-corporate-diversity-disclosure-trends; Resume.org, “1 in 8 Companies Are Scaling Back DEI Commitments in 2025,” 2025. https://www.resume.org/research/1-in-8-companies-are-scaling-back-dei-commitments-in-2025-many-cite-political-climate/; ResumeTemplates, “1 in 3 Companies That Rolled Back DEI Initiatives Are Reinstating Them,” 2025. https://www.resumetemplates.com/1-in-3-companies-that-rolled-back-dei-initiatives-are-reinstating-them/ ↩

10. CNN, “DEI is winning with Costco, Apple and Levi’s shareholders,” May 2, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/business/costco-apple-levi-shareholders-dei; Fortune, “Companies like Costco and Apple are defending their DEI programs despite nationwide pushback,” January 29, 2025. https://fortune.com/2025/01/29/companies-like-costco-and-apple-are-defending-their-dei-programs-despite-nationwide-pushback-these-are-the-companies-standing-by-their-policies/; Axios, “Companies that kept DEI commitments saw higher reputation scores in 2025,” May 29, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/05/29/dei-patagonia-costco-microsoft-reputation-surge; Fortune, “Costco defied Trump’s DEI directive as Target and Walmart scaled back. Business is booming,” February 13, 2026. https://fortune.com/2026/02/13/costco-defies-trump-on-dei-business-booming/ ↩