It’s what we were concerned about and ultimately anticipated: The new administration has placed DEI programs squarely in its crosshairs. Within his first few days in office, President Trump swiftly moved to dismantle federal DEI initiatives, putting diversity officers on leave and implementing a series of measures aimed at curbing workplace diversity efforts.
Perhaps the most consequential of these actions is the Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This order mandates that all federal contracts include provisions requiring contractors to certify that they do not operate any DEI programs that could be interpreted as violating federal antidiscrimination laws. Furthermore, within 120 days of the order, the administration aims to identify and investigate “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” across various sectors, including publicly traded corporations, large nonprofits, and higher education institutions with significant endowments.
This aggressive crackdown has sent shock waves through public and private sector organizations alike that have invested in DEI efforts. With increased legal scrutiny and heightened political backlash, many leaders are now faced with a difficult question: Should they rename their DEI programs to sidestep political and legal attacks while continuing to uphold their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Why Rename DEI?
While this move may sound reminiscent of SHRM’s controversial decision to remove “equity” from DEI—a move viewed by many as a step backward.
Times have changed drastically since last summer. Though DEI faced backlash before, the current political landscape has only heightened scrutiny. The administration has gone so far as to dub DEI programs “radical and wasteful government preferencing.”
Read our expert analysis of what the new administration’s latest executive orders mean for DEI here.
The current administration has already used DEI as a scapegoat for national issues. After a tragic crash in Washington, DC, President Trump falsely implied diversity requirements at the Federal Aviation Administration may have been the cause for a midair collision over the Potomac River. Additionally, his administration has directed the attorney general’s office to submit recommendations for how the White House can “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,” signaling that efforts to scale back DEI in the private sector could be forthcoming.
The version of DEI that the new administration and critics oppose is not the real DEI. They have built a straw man, misrepresenting DEI efforts as a collection of quotas that reflect a lack of meritocracy, along with other misconceptions. In truth, DEI has always been about fostering opportunity, fairness, and inclusive workplaces. If preserving this mission means adjusting terminology, it may be a necessary step.
The most important thing to remember is that this work matters—not just to the practitioners who make these efforts day in and day out but also to employees across all industries. In fact, Seramount research shows that 78 percent of employees find it extremely or very important for their company to be an inclusive organization.
So, while some may feel like renaming DEI is hiding behind a new name, it is essential to keep the goal in mind rather than the label. The objective remains the same: creating more inclusive workplaces. If a new title allows this work to continue, then it ensures progress is still being made.
Obsessing over the label (‘DEI’ or any other) at times distracts from our true goal: increasing understanding, support, and equitable outcomes in the workplace. If ‘DEI’ becomes a barrier to genuine conversation and action, explore alternative language that resonates better with your organizational culture.
Renaming DEI programs is not without risks. In today’s charged environment, external stakeholders, including consumers, investors, and advocacy groups, as well as employees and even fellow practitioners, may view these changes with skepticism. Some may see rebranding as a dilution of commitment rather than a necessary adaptation.
Employees, in particular, place significant value on workplace inclusion, and nearly 40 percent have said they would leave their jobs if their employer took a political stance they disagreed with. A sudden shift in DEI branding could be interpreted as exactly that. If organizations fail to communicate the reasoning behind these changes, they risk damaging trust and engagement among their workforce.
This is particularly important given that some companies are actively scaling back DEI efforts altogether. Organizations that reframe their programs for sustainability risk being mistaken for those abandoning them entirely. The challenge lies in ensuring that a name change does not come across as an attempt to distance the organization from DEI principles but rather as a means of securing their longevity.
Transparency is key. If organizations are renaming their DEI programs to ensure sustainability rather than abandoning them, they must clearly communicate their continued commitment—both internally and externally. Whether through continued investments in DEI initiatives, clear messaging from leadership, or ongoing engagement with employees and stakeholders, organizations must ensure that renaming does not equate to retreating.
Beyond perception, there are also legal considerations. While DEI initiatives encompass far more than compliance, they remain connected to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws and other workplace protections. The current political changes have not removed legal responsibilities related to anti-discrimination policies, affirmative action, or equitable hiring practices. Branding may shift, but obligations—and potential liabilities—remain. A name change shouldn’t mean a change in action, and organizations must ensure any rebrand aligns with their legal commitments and workplace protections.
How Other Companies Are Rebranding DEI Programs
Sixty percent of CDOs are at least somewhat supportive of renaming DEI work, recent Seramount research found. As organizations look to adjust their DEI programs, many are transitioning to broader, more flexible language that maintains a focus on inclusion and fairness, while avoiding the political backlash tied to the DEI label.
As organizations look to adjust their DEI programs, many are transitioning to broader, more flexible language that maintains a focus on inclusion and fairness, while avoiding the political backlash tied to the DEI label.
For example, some have embraced terms such as “Inclusion” or “Culture and Belonging,” which emphasizes the importance of creating an environment where all employees feel seen, heard, and valued. Others are using “Equity and Impact” to highlight their ongoing commitment to fairness while focusing on measurable change in the workplace. Companies are also experimenting with creative labels such as “Workplace Well-Being” or “Opportunity and Access” to reflect a more holistic approach to organizational development that encompasses both diversity and other employee-centric initiatives. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs have even made a comeback in some industries, signaling a return to the more traditional but still relevant frameworks of fairness and antidiscrimination practices.
Another approach gaining traction is shifting DEI initiatives to departments such as Legal, Marketing, Operations, or Strategy—teams DEI already collaborates with closely. This integration embeds DEI more deeply into the organization’s broader business strategy while also helping to reframe it beyond just hiring practices, a misconception frequently weaponized by critics and reinforced in recent executive order.
Ultimately, whatever term an organization chooses, whether sticking with “DEI” or rebranding, the key is to ensure that the language resonates with the broader organization. Seramount’s research has shown that word choice can significantly impact how employees perceive and connect with these efforts. For example, in developing our foundational DEI training program, we found that terms such as “allyship” and “psychological safety” can feel unrelatable or overly academic to some employees. By reframing these concepts as “taking care of each other” or “bringing your best self to work,” organizations can make DEI more accessible without compromising its intent.
This can be especially important in reaching employees who might not initially see themselves reflected in DEI efforts. Research shows that an “all-inclusive” approach—one that emphasizes that diversity includes all employees, not just specific groups—is most effective at garnering support from employees of all backgrounds. The more inclusive the language, the more people will understand that DEI is not about a select few; it’s about creating a workplace where everyone thrives. By making these connections clearer, organizations can gain broader support and engagement, even from those who may not have initially seen themselves reflected in DEI efforts.
Seramount has helped many companies navigate this evolution and can provide guidance in finding the best approach for your organization.
While it might seem like DEI is being pushed into the background, this evolution represents not a retreat but a strategic adaptation. DEI has experienced fluctuations before—from the heightened corporate focus in 2020 to the backlash of 2024. What we’re seeing emerge now is something more nuanced: “Quiet DEI,” where organizations continue their commitment to inclusive workplaces through thoughtful, strategic approaches that prioritize impact over public declarations.
The highest priority during this phase is authenticity. If organizations have been genuine in their DEI efforts from the outset, a change in terminology shouldn’t significantly affect the outcomes. The goal remains the same: to foster diversity and inclusion within the workplace. If renaming DEI programs helps maintain that focus under a less politically charged banner, then it’s a small but necessary step to ensure progress continues.
Ultimately, renaming DEI programs is a strategic decision that will depend on the unique circumstances of each organization. As we move forward, the most important question remains: How can we ensure that the outcomes of our DEI work, regardless of the label, are truly transformative for the workforce?
Kayla Haskins is an Associate Director, Product Marketing at Seramount. In this role, she supports DEI Practitioners and Talent Leaders in creating more inclusive workplaces by providing valuable insights and resources through webinars, blog posts, guides, infographics, and more.
With nearly a decade of experience in the technology and non-profit sectors,
Kayla Haskins is an Associate Director, Product Marketing at Seramount. In this role, she supports DEI Practitioners and Talent Leaders in creating more inclusive workplaces by providing valuable insights and resources through webinars, blog posts, guides, infographics, and more.
With nearly a decade of experience in the technology and non-profit sectors, Kayla excels in translating complex ideas into clear, actionable concepts. She is passionate about storytelling and is dedicated to addressing today’s most pressing workplace issues to drive meaningful impact.
Kayla holds a degree in English and Creative Writing from Dickinson College. She lives in Silver Spring, MD with her partner, Nick, and their dog, Zero. In her free time, she enjoys hiking, reading, and spending time with family and friends.
