SEE MORE ARTICLES

The second Trump administration’s war against all forms of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs — not only in the federal government but within the private sector as well — may have been waged under the auspices of removing identity-based quotas and restoring the ideal of merit, but its downstream effects have rippled far beyond this initial effort. One aspect of the DEI infrastructure that the administration has sought to dismantle includes anti-discrimination protections for groups, including LGBT people.

There are valid, liberal-minded complaints that can be levied against parts of DEI. The fact is, when 97% of companies have at least one DEI initiative, there are bound to be blunders and overreaches. These programs have left some people in minority groups feeling like token employees paraded around because they make the company look more “diverse.” Others wonder whether they were hired or promoted not because of their qualifications or performance, but because they checked the right diversity boxes. Meanwhile, some cis-hetero white people have felt that DEI trainings portrayed them as villains just for existing, blaming them for bad things done by others, often decades or even centuries before they were born. When people are made to feel ashamed just for who they are, it triggers a natural defense mechanism.

This is equally true for minority groups. For example, my sources in Eastern Europe have told me that US-style DEI has been exported to parts of the education system in places like Bosnia and Chechnya. And when these rural people, many of whom have survived actual genocides, are “taught” that they are less “privileged” than wealthier black Americans, it strikes them as propaganda and nonsense — which, in a way, it kind of is.

There are real issues with DEI, and some initiatives probably should be shut down or replaced. The nuance here is that, entangled with the problematic aspects, some of these programs also serve necessary functions such as creating accessible environments for disabled people in the workplace or protecting LGBT people from bullying at work. 47% of LGBT people face workplace discrimination or harassment. But the Trump administration neither sees nor makes any distinction: they are targeting everything that in any sense promotes inclusion and non-discrimination, destroying the necessary safeguards alongside the harmful excesses. This remains true even with the game of cat and mouse that Trump is playing with the courts.

The battle over DEI has ultimately become a clash over economic freedom and free expression. The White House’s crusade against its expansive definition of DEI has been met in different ways by different companies. Corporations like Meta and Amazon have embraced the new vibes and scaled back their diversity programs. Even before Trump's inauguration, Meta sent a memo to its staff announcing it was scrapping the programs due to a "shifting legal and policy landscape." Other companies have put up more of a fight and opposed such interference in their business, such as Apple, whose shareholders voted to keep their diversity programs. Most have found a middle ground somewhere in between. Steve Odland, the CEO of The Conference Board — a nonprofit think tank and business membership organization — told Fortune that some CEOs are getting rid of DEI programs on paper but without changing much their internal policies regarding minorities:

“The term DEI has now been infused with so much baggage that most companies are saying, let’s stop using the term and call it something else [...]. Don’t discriminate and don’t do quotas.”

In recent years, the office of the US Presidency has come to occupy an outsized influence in the economy. To be clear, there have been problems with some ideas around inclusion even before Trump. During the Biden administration, the government supported LGBT-friendly businesses and LGBT programs in the US and abroad. In response, many companies and NGOs shifted to become more supportive of the LGBT community, not always because of a genuine change of heart, but for self-serving reasons — either as a PR move or to build a better relationship with the government. Now, we are seeing the reverse: companies moving away from LGBT initiatives to stay out of the crosshairs of a different administration.

The larger point getting lost in this tug of war is that cultivating a society around the values of liberal inclusion is economically beneficial. Consider the case of Alan Turing, the genius mathematician and father of computer science, whose work was instrumental in the Allied victory in World War II. But despite his monumental contributions to science, his country, and the free world, Turing was convicted by Great Britain for being a gay man. Stripped of his security clearance, his career, and his right to travel (he tried to enter the United States but couldn’t), Turing was given a choice between imprisonment and chemical castration. He chose the latter, but ended up taking his own life.

Turing’s story is first and foremost a tragedy, but it’s also a lesson. Imagine how much a man like Alan Turing could make for your company if he were working for you. Imagine how much more productive, profitable, and innovative a corporation — or economy — is when they aren’t suppressing a part of their potential talent pool. LGBT people are good for business. Think about the transgender sisters Lana and Lilly Wachowski, and the influence their iconic Matrix films have had on world culture. Do we want to live in societies that would not have allowed them the opportunities and liberty to express themselves? For many decades, the world has slowly been moving in the direction of tolerance and freedom. But we now seem to have veered from that path.

According to the Movement Advancement Project, trans workers experience unemployment at twice the rate of the general population (14% versus 7%). Moreover, 44% of trans people who are currently working are underemployed. Of course, not all gay and bi people are like Turing, and not all trans people are like the Wachowskis. But the broader the hiring pool you have, the better employees you can find. And the more friendly an atmosphere you cultivate in your workplace, the more employees can show their potential. Sure, in the short term, the incentives at the moment may point in the direction of bigotry to appease authoritarian leaders. Still, in the long term, the honey of liberal tolerance wins more friends than the vinegar of close-minded bias.

This is a case I’ve made multiple times, writing in one of the leading Russian magazines, Republic, about inclusion toward disabled and trans people as well as the value of free markets, classical liberalism, and the Austrian school of economics. I namedrop these simply to demonstrate that there is nothing “woke” about being fair toward LGBT people and other minorities, or in providing a friendly and inclusive environment. Liberal tolerance is an investment, not only in business but in society — but only when done wisely. When diversity becomes a far-left project used to spread extremist ideologies, promote white guilt, and advance tokenism, all within an endlessly expanding bureaucracy, it loses all social value. No one has inspired more dislike of DEI programs than DEI programs themselves.

People should have the right to be themselves and not live in hiding. Far from being a controversial or radical statement, it’s just good business. One of the reasons that Apple has stood firm in support of its diversity policies may be that the Apple CEO, Tim Cook, is openly gay. As he wrote in 2014, “I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”

At the same time, if LGBT people and other groups rely too heavily on the government for protection, we put far too much power in the hands of politicians. Political leaders, administrations, and even laws come and go. Court rulings are overturned, bills repealed, and constitutions amended. What drives these changes is public opinion, and it’s up to those of us who want to see human rights upheld to make the case that we are all better off with universal rights. In 1920, the USSR became the first modern country to legalize abortion, only to ban it again in 1932. Women had no say. The government giveth, and the government taketh away. What builds lasting human rights is not laws alone, but a culture — and economy — of tolerance and mutually beneficial incentives.

America is living through complicated times. One small silver lining could be the LGBT movement realizing it needs to course correct — not only to moderate and liberalize some of its stances on deeply unpopular issues, but also to rely less on the government and work more closely with the private sector. In the final analysis, we probably don’t need more diversity bureaucrats. What we need are more LGBT entrepreneurs.

Published Oct 13, 2025