Trump DOJ Could Crack Down On DEI-Fueled Dis­crim­i­na­tion Against Whites And Asians

Under Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, the Depart­ment of Jus­tice could stop cor­po­ra­tions from imple­ment­ing diver­si­ty, equi­ty, and inclu­sion poli­cies that dis­ad­van­tage white and Asian appli­cants.

As The Dai­ly Wire has report­ed, com­pa­nies across indus­tries appear to have dis­crim­i­nat­ed against white and Asian indi­vid­u­als through their DEI pro­grams, which pri­or­i­tize hir­ing and pro­mot­ing black appli­cants and oth­er “under­rep­re­sent­ed racial minori­ties.” David Piv­torak, a lawyer who has active cas­es against Amer­i­can Express for alleged racial dis­crim­i­na­tion against white employ­ees, told The Dai­ly Wire that the Trump Jus­tice Depart­ment will have a wide range of tools at its dis­pos­al to com­bat DEI dis­crim­i­na­tion.

“The DOJ has a panoply of reme­dies it can seek to address the dis­crim­i­na­tion that results from these DEI pro­grams,” Piv­torak said.

The department’s Civ­il Rights Divi­sion, for instance, “can ini­ti­ate inves­ti­ga­tions” to obtain “a wide vari­ety of a company’s inter­nal data and doc­u­ments,” or file law­suits to take “depo­si­tions of high-lev­el exec­u­tives and even the CEO or Board of Direc­tors if they were direct­ly involved in imple­ment­ing these DEI pro­grams.”

The Jus­tice Depart­ment could also go fur­ther, issu­ing a “con­sent decree,” which would let the depart­ment “over­see a company’s oper­a­tions for years to come.” Such a move — which “has an extreme coer­cive effect” — could push com­pa­nies to aban­don DEI pro­grams out­right, Piv­torak says.

“From a cost-ben­e­fit per­spec­tive, com­pa­nies may decide that the has­sle of main­tain­ing DEI is just not worth it, espe­cial­ly since these are not prof­itable endeav­ors but are most­ly there to keep a small con­tin­gent of vocal activists sat­is­fied.”

Report­ing in the lead-up to the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion indi­cat­ed that Trump’s allies could apply laws from the Civ­il Rights era to cas­es of “anti-white racism,” in which DEI pro­grams uti­lize racial­ly dis­crim­i­na­to­ry cri­te­ria. Stephen Miller, whose Amer­i­ca First Legal filed a suc­cess­ful suit against a $29 bil­lion pan­dem­ic relief pro­gram that was found to have dis­crim­i­nat­ed against white male busi­ness own­ers, will be at the fore­front of these efforts as Trump’s deputy chief of staff for pol­i­cy.

Should the Trump Jus­tice Depart­ment decide to pros­e­cute com­pa­nies that engage in dis­crim­i­na­to­ry prac­tices, it would have no short­age of pro­grams to inves­ti­gate.

At Ora­cle, for exam­ple, whites and Asians were inel­i­gi­ble for two career advance­ment pro­grams reserved for “African American/Black, Amer­i­can Indi­an – Alas­ka Native, His­pan­ic Amer­i­can” appli­cants.

IBM host­ed two intern­ship oppor­tu­ni­ties, includ­ing one that barred white and Asian appli­cants and anoth­er that barred male appli­cants — unless those men iden­ti­fied as women.

The company’s “intern­ship for under­rep­re­sent­ed minori­ties” said that “appli­cants must be under­rep­re­sent­ed minori­ties” and list­ed the approved racial back­grounds of “African Amer­i­can, His­pan­ic, or Indige­nous.” The “intern­ship for under­grad­u­ate women” required that appli­cants be female, but caveat­ed that “all stu­dents who present or iden­ti­fy as women and/or trans women,” were also eli­gi­ble.

David Bern­stein, a pro­fes­sor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told The Dai­ly Wire that the pro­grams “clear­ly vio­late Title VII,” which “does not allow for race or sex-based pref­er­ences for employ­ment except per­haps as part of bona fide affir­ma­tive action pro­grams ini­ti­at­ed to redress past dis­crim­i­na­to­ry poli­cies.”

Mis­souri Attor­ney Gen­er­al Andrew Bai­ley sued IBM over oth­er acts of alleged dis­crim­i­na­tion against white and Asian job appli­cants.

Microsoft boast­ed in a report that it paid non-white employ­ees slight­ly more than white employ­ees, even when they had the same job titles. And Apple’s entre­pre­neur camp devel­op­ment pro­gram, where founders could receive “one-on-one code-lev­el guid­ance from Apple engi­neers,” required com­pa­nies to have per­son­nel from cer­tain demo­graph­ic back­grounds in cer­tain roles. Apple’s under­rep­re­sent­ed founders pro­gram required com­pa­nies to have “a black, Hispanic/Latinx, or Indige­nous founder, cofounder, or CEO” as well as a “black, Hispanic/Latinx, Indige­nous, or female devel­op­er.”

There’s also NASCAR’s diver­si­ty intern­ship pro­gram, which Bern­stein called “bla­tant­ly ille­gal” because it barred white peo­ple from apply­ing. NASCAR amend­ed its intern­ship pro­gram and removed the racial require­ments in the wake of The Dai­ly Wire inves­ti­ga­tion.

Robert Kraft’s com­pa­ny, best known for own­ing the New Eng­land Patri­ots, appeared to engage in anti-white dis­crim­i­na­tion when it adver­tised a job post­ing that list­ed “BIPOC,” a term that means “black, indige­nous, peo­ple of col­or,” as a job qual­i­fi­ca­tion.

“The goal of this pro­gram is to diver­si­fy the future of the sports and enter­tain­ment man­age­ment indus­try by pro­vid­ing oppor­tu­ni­ty and access to BIPOC can­di­dates con­nect­ed to the New Eng­land com­mu­ni­ty,” the job post­ing said.

Voya Finan­cial was equal­ly brazen when it barred white stu­dents from its Finan­cial Ser­vices Diver­si­ty Schol­ars Pro­gram. Appli­cants for the now-defunct pro­gram were only eli­gi­ble if they self-iden­ti­fied as “Black or African Amer­i­can; His­pan­ic or Lati­no; Amer­i­can Indi­an or Alas­ka Native Amer­i­can; Asian; Native Hawai­ian or Oth­er Pacif­ic Islander; or mul­ti-racial.”

Voya Finan­cial is just one enti­ty among a long list of bank­ing and finan­cial insti­tu­tions that imple­ment­ed dis­crim­i­na­to­ry DEI pro­grams.

One Dai­ly Wire inves­ti­ga­tion revealed that sev­er­al of the most promi­nent banks in Amer­i­ca adver­tised racial­ly dis­crim­i­na­to­ry DEI pro­grams. A Mor­gan Stan­ley sum­mer train­ing pro­gram was lim­it­ed to “his­tor­i­cal­ly under­rep­re­sent­ed pop­u­la­tions.” The eli­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria explained that the term referred to “women, His­pan­ic, Black, vet­er­an, dis­abled, LGBTQ+, and first-gen­er­a­tion col­lege stu­dent pop­u­la­tions.”

J.P. Morgan’s now dis­con­tin­ued “launch­ing lead­ers under­grad­u­ate pro­gram” was only open to “Black, His­pan­ic and Native Amer­i­can sopho­mores and juniors from all majors who are inter­est­ed in finan­cial ser­vices and have a 3.5 GPA min­i­mum,” while a Wells Far­go fel­low­ship was lim­it­ed to “under­rep­re­sent­ed can­di­dates,” includ­ing “female, Black/African Amer­i­can, Latinx/Hispanic, Asian, Native American/Alaskan Native and LGBTQIA+ stu­dents, as well as pro­tect­ed vet­er­ans and peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties.”

U.S. Bank’s Diver­si­ty, Equi­ty, and Inclu­sion Strat­e­gy Man­ag­er Astrid Benedet­to cel­e­brat­ed a career advance­ment pro­gram from McK­in­sey and Com­pa­ny that appeared to dis­crim­i­nate against white pro­fes­sion­als, The Dai­ly Wire also revealed. The con­sult­ing giant host­ed race-spe­cif­ic pro­fes­sion­al devel­op­ment pro­grams, respec­tive­ly titled the “Black Lead­er­ship Acad­e­my,” the “His­pan­ic and Lati­no Lead­er­ship Acad­e­my,” and the “Asian Lead­er­ship Acad­e­my.”