They're cutting a lot more than that, this has been all over the media. One example would be biomedical research via NIH/NSF. This is not just DEI (in whatever overly broad and vague definition they use), but a lot more.
What about this argument people are making in this thread that they're not actually doing any real cutting because they're not Congress? That seems like a stretch.
That preventing a repeat of the damage done to America cities by the national highway system[1], which was used mechanism to literally segregate American cities is also a waste of time and money.
Most of the US significant racial atrocities committed against its own citizens, where either committed by, or with the direct assistance of, the U.S. government (at both state and federal level).
There probably a good discussion to be had on how much should be spent on DEI efforts. But the idea that spending zero really doesn’t make much sense, we know what the consequences of allowing the U.S. government to become entirely occupied by white men. Ultimately a monoculture of people results in a monoculture of ideas, and monocultures never last, something comes along finding some critical weakness that common to every agent in the monoculture, and utterly destroys the organism (in the case of the U.S. government, that might be Trump and Musk). DEI is strategically important because diverse systems are more robust, produce better ideas, and are better capable of surviving extreme shocks. All attributes people should want in their government.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-...
I would also still support the ADA and its enforcement.
These two ideas are not in conflict. No one is trying to strip the legal rights of deaf people, nor will it happen. That is a straw man/hyperbole.
“ Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
So… not exactly a strawman.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...
The reality is that DEI is a campaign to get people aware of implicit bias. It's been proven time and time again that resumes with a name like "Shaniqua" are more likely to be rejected over one with a "John" even when all the qualifications are the same.
But now, of course, with the current political climate, if you're a woman or PoC, you have to be a perfect worker. If you make any kind of mistake, you'll be accused of being a DEI hire.
I suspect we're gonna start seeing this XKCD linked more often over the next 4 years: https://xkcd.com/385/
So how about we start by purging the Senate.
1) Headline is interesting, I follow the link to 404media, ah they want me to sign up and give over personal info to read this. Screw that let's go to doge.gov and see if it's hacked.
2) Doesn't appear to be, never checked out their website before, what is there?
3) Basically a list of Tweets, showing that the executive branch has cancelled one DEI expenditure after another. Basically all these expenditures are DEI. It's government grants and contracts that have things like Diversity, Equity, and/or Inclusion in the name. Which they claim the executive branch has just cancelled. (Are they lying?)
Now here I will confess to one bias, I don't think any public money whatsoever needs to go to DEI. Not a single penny. So as far as I can tell a lot of this is good, we can agree to disagree, if we debate it we'll probably never agree. But like a lot of Americans, I 100% support public money never going to DEI initiatives. If you are promoting race education or gender sensitivity or whatever, nope not with government funds. Find the money for it privately.
So all the claims in this thread include stuff like "The executive branch can't actually cancel contracts," which that website says they are doing now. And it says "the problem is such and such about bureaucracy and corruption," well yeah I don't like those either, and I'd agree this isn't obviously anti-corruption work being done here, but again, at face value:
A) It looks like these guys are eliminating public spending on DEI
B) Ergo it looks like they are doing exactly what the public elected Donald Trump to do
Flame away, downvote if you think the government should fund DEI, it's all good - but really what am I missing here?
It seems to me DOGE is an entity created to eliminate DEI funding, at the behest of a duly elected American public official who is doing what his constituents elected him to do, and they are succeeding. Is this wrong?
(Spare me any arguments in favor of DEI as they will fall on deaf ears.)