Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility: FAQs

Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility: FAQs

The current federal administration has issued executive orders and taken other actions attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives throughout the federal government and, in some cases, seeking to undermine DEI initiatives undertaken by non-federal actors such as state and local governments and private-sector organizations. ChangeLab Solutions, with support from our Act for Public Health partners, presents these FAQs to help readers understand these executive orders, the goals and limits of their application, and their implications for public health practice. While executive orders and other executive actions may be promulgated at various levels of government (federal, state, and local) and on a range of topics, this explainer focuses only on recent federal actions on DEI.

For general information on federal executive orders, refer to Executive Orders & Public Health Practice: FAQs. Act for Public Health partners have also published information on how recent federal actions are affecting public health–related issues such as immigration and LGBTQ+ rights.

We also acknowledge that accessibility is a central part of DEI and that DEI is sometimes called diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). We use both terms in this resource for consistency with how they are used in the various presidential actions that we discuss.

Disclaimer: This resource is intended for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. For legal advice, readers should consult a lawyer in their state.

What are DEI and DEIA, and how do they connect to public health?

The purpose of DEI and DEIA activities is typically to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities regardless of social and demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and religion. DEI and DEIA are not new, though they have been called different things throughout history. For example, the federal government has undertaken efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity for decades. Moreover, many aspects of DEI and DEIA are required by federal and state civil rights laws, including laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education, and health care.

Ensuring equal opportunities for all — which is often a goal of DEI and DEIA initiatives — is also core to public health. Public health practitioners across the political spectrum have increasingly recognized that improving health at the population level requires ensuring that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. This recognition has led Healthy People 2030 to prioritize “eliminating health disparities and creating fair opportunities for people to live healthy lives.”

DEI and DEIA can encompass a broad range of programs, practices, and policies that touch on many social determinants of health — such as economic stability and access to quality education and health care. Such programs are often implemented by workplaces in the public and private sectors and can include efforts related to fair recruitment and hiring, pay equity, and accessibility, among others. DEI and DEIA initiatives may also be implemented by public and private schools and universities to ensure equal opportunities for applicants and students. Finally, nonprofits, philanthropies, and other private-sector organizations may have DEI initiatives focused on fairness and opportunity outside of the workplace environment. Examples include ensuring diverse representation in research, equitable funding opportunities, or training to help health care providers effectively treat patients of all backgrounds.

In addition to promoting equitable access to the resources and opportunities needed to thrive, DEI and DEIA initiatives undertaken by public health agencies and organizations can help to create a public health workforce that is representative of diverse communities and equipped to address their needs.

What are examples of recent presidential actions affecting DEI and DEIA activities?

The federal administration has taken a number of actions that seek to limit or eliminate DEI and DEIA activities throughout the federal government. Some of these actions also seek to limit DEI in state and local government agencies and in the private sector by changing how federal agencies work with, fund, or regulate non-federal actors. These actions take various forms, including executive orders and memorandums. Many of these actions are likely illegal, at least in part, and some have been challenged in court, as we describe later in this resource.

The president’s actions affecting DEI and DEIA activities include the following:

Executive Order 14148 (issued January 20, 2025): This order rescinds prior executive orders related to pandemic response, public health–related environmental protections, DEI initiatives, and more.
Executive Order 14151 (issued January 20, 2025): This order directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the attorney general and the director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to coordinate the termination of all “illegal” DEI and DEIA activities in the federal government. To further this goal, the order directs the director of OPM, assisted by the attorney general, to “review and revise” federal employment practices, union contracts, and training programs. Agency heads are directed to terminate all offices, positions, programs, contracts, and grants related to DEI, DEIA, and environmental justice and to terminate all DEI and DEIA performance requirements for federal employees, contractors, and grantees. Finally, the order directs federal agencies to provide OMB with (1) a list of federal grantees who received funding before the 2024 presidential election to advance DEI, DEIA, and environmental justice goals; (2) a list of federal contractors who have provided DEI training to federal agencies; and (3) a list of all DEI, DEIA, or environmental justice positions, activities, and expenditures in existence as of November 4, 2024, as well as an assessment of whether they have been “misleadingly relabeled in an attempt to preserve their pre-November 4, 2024 function.”
Executive Order 14173 (issued January 21, 2025): This order includes various directives to eliminate DEI within the federal government, private sector, and educational institutions. It revokes several long-standing executive orders intended to address discrimination, including a 1965 order that required each federal agency to have an equal employment opportunity program, barred discrimination by federal contractors, and required contractors of a certain size to maintain affirmative action programs. Executive Order 14173 also mandates certain terms for all federal contracts, including requiring contractors to certify that they do not “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.” The order then directs the attorney general and OMB to submit a report including, among other things, recommendations for enforcing federal civil rights laws against private businesses and organizations in a way that would discourage “illegal” equity initiatives, as well as a plan for identifying potential civil compliance investigations of large corporations, nonprofits, foundations, bar and medical associations, and higher education institutions. Finally, the order directs the attorney general and the secretary of education to issue guidance to state and local education agencies and higher education institutions that receive federal funding on how to comply with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision concluding that race-conscious admissions programs at two universities were unconstitutional.
Memorandum, “Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation” (issued January 21, 2025): This memorandum directs the secretary of transportation and the federal aviation administrator to “immediately return [the Federal Aviation Administration] to non-discriminatory, merit-based hiring”; end all DEI initiatives; and review all individuals in critical safety positions to ensure that anyone “who fails or has failed to demonstrate requisite capability is replaced by a high-capability individual that will ensure top-notch air safety and efficiency.”
Executive Order 14185 (issued January 27, 2025): This order directs the secretaries of defense and homeland security to abolish all DEI offices within their departments. It orders the secretary of defense to conduct an internal review of past DEI initiatives “including all instances of race and sex discrimination and activities designed to promote a race- or sex-based preferences system.” It prohibits the Department of Defense and the US armed forces, as well as any educational institutions they operate, from teaching about gender variation and systemic racism and sexism, instead requiring them “to teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.” And it directs the secretaries of defense and homeland security to issue detailed implementation guidance to their departments and to submit a report on their progress toward effectuating these orders to the deputy chief of staff for policy.
Memorandum, “Immediate Assessment of Aviation Safety” (issued January 30, 2025): This memorandum directs the secretary of transportation and the federal aviation administrator to review all hiring decisions and changes to safety protocols made at the Federal Aviation Administration during the last four years and replace “any individuals who do not meet qualification standards.”

The president’s actions affecting LGBTQ+ communities also hinder DEIA goals and activities. To learn more, see Executive Orders Affecting LGBTQ+ Communities: FAQs. Additionally, DEI and DEIA activities may be affected by state-level executive actions or legislation. To learn more about proposed or enacted state laws that seek to limit DEI and DEIA, refer to the following resources:

MultiState: How State Anti-DEI Efforts Are Evolving (from Public Sector to Private?)
EdTrust: A Map of Anti-DEI Efforts on College Campuses Across the U.S.
The Chronicle of Higher Education: DEI Legislation Tracker

How have federal agencies begun to respond to these presidential actions?

Federal agencies have begun to implement recent presidential actions by closing DEI offices, removing equity-related guidance from their websites, and placing employees of DEI-related offices on administrative leave. They have also taken steps that affect non-federal entities. For example, in late January 2025, the Department of Labor and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention sent letters to grantees directing them to cease all DEI-related activities. The Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was opening investigations into four medical schools and hospitals to assess whether their education, training, or scholarship programs violate federal anti-discrimination laws. And in February 2025, the Department of Education sent a letter to educational institutions advising them to “ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law” and “cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies,” or risk losing federal funding. For additional information about some of these presidential actions and how federal agencies have begun to respond, see Recent Executive Actions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) from the Congressional Research Service and press releases from the Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Health and Human Services.

What are the limits of recent presidential actions affecting DEI and DEIA activities?

The Supreme Court has explained that executive orders must be rooted in one of the president’s powers as outlined in the US Constitution or a law passed by Congress. Thus, the US Constitution and existing federal laws limit what executive orders can cover.

Executive orders and other presidential actions are typically used to manage the internal operations of federal agencies and employees under the president’s control. Executive orders generally do not act like far-reaching, new federal laws, nor have executive orders generally been used to thwart judicial rulings or undermine constitutionally sound laws adopted by Congress. For example, executive orders generally do not undermine civil rights laws that promote equal opportunities for all in employment, housing, education, and health care.

If a federal court decides that a presidential action is unlawful, the court can strike it down or limit its application. More information on how recent presidential actions on DEI and DEIA are being legally challenged is provided later in this document. To learn more about general limits on executive orders, see Act for Public Health’s resource Executive Orders & Public Health Practice: FAQs.

Do recent presidential actions mean that DEI and DEIA are now illegal?

No. Executive orders and other presidential actions cannot change existing federal laws — such as civil rights statutes or constitutional requirements for freedom of speech and equal protection — or judicial interpretations of these and other laws. While recent executive orders appear to target existing public health practices and are designed to prompt swift, preemptive, and expansive action to comply, such a response could potentially result in unnecessary overcompliance and, in some cases, could make federal agencies, state and local governments, and private-sector organizations vulnerable to legal challenges.

For example, when government agencies, academic institutions, and other organizations limit public health practitioners’ ability to discuss, research, and educate the public about health equity, implicit bias, and other DEI-related topics, they might run afoul of First Amendment protections of free speech. Similarly, many activities that may be encompassed by the terms DEI and DEIA can help federal agencies, state and local governments, and private organizations comply with existing civil rights laws. In some instances, an agency or organization’s failure to pursue DEI-related activities — for example, by failing to maintain fair hiring practices — would make the organization more vulnerable to claims of unlawful discrimination. For this reason, organizations — particularly non-federal agencies and private-sector organizations, which are not under the president’s direct control — should avoid unnecessary overcompliance. Before terminating any DEI or DEIA activities, it is advisable to consult with an attorney to assess whether specific activities are required or supported by existing law.

Although some recent presidential actions describe DEI as “illegal” or “discriminatory,” the orders do not define precisely what types of conduct they address. There is no generally accepted or legal definition of the terms DEI and DEIA, and as described earlier, these terms can encompass a broad range of policies, practices, and activities. The determination of whether specific conduct constitutes illegal discrimination must ultimately be made by a court in a lawsuit challenging the conduct. The standards that the Supreme Court applies when evaluating claims of illegal discrimination have not changed in recent years other than in challenges to affirmative action in the higher education context. While the Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision on affirmative action does not have any direct or immediate bearing on the legality of DEI initiatives that are unrelated to college admissions, some individuals and organizations have filed lawsuits arguing that the Supreme Court should apply its reasoning in other contexts. Thus far, these lawsuits have been largely unsuccessful, but the situation may evolve as lawsuits continue to work their way through the courts. In the meantime, the following takeaways may be helpful for public health practitioners working in government settings or in institutions that receive federal funding:

First, no constitutionally sound law adopted by Congress and no court has established that DEI and DEIA — broadly speaking — are illegal.
Second, as has been true for decades, policies and practices that make explicit race-based distinctions will likely face heightened scrutiny by courts but may nevertheless be legally permissible as long as they remediate specific past instances of government-sponsored racial discrimination.
Third, as has also been true for decades, race-neutral policies and practices that do not make explicit racial distinctions but have a disproportionate positive impact on different racial groups are also likely a legally viable path forward, though they may face heightened judicial scrutiny if they are motivated by racial considerations.

ChangeLab Solutions is developing more comprehensive resources to explore the underlying law and takeaways for policymakers, organizations, and individuals seeking to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Finally, while presidential actions cannot change existing federal laws, they can announce how the current administration will interpret, implement, and enforce existing laws. In the case of recent presidential actions on DEI and DEIA, the current administration’s legal interpretations seem to differ from prior practice and have resulted in a real and immediate risk of federal enforcement, loss of funding, and other negative consequences for state and local governments and private-sector organizations, especially those that have federal grants or contracts. Those harmed by the administration’s actions can challenge them by filing a lawsuit in federal court. (For more on court challenges to recent presidential actions, see the next section.) The decisions that courts issue in response to these lawsuits can either validate or reject the administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws and other protections. In this way, the presidential actions could potentially be designed to shift the goalposts and pave the way for changes to the law over time, which makes it important for public health practitioners to stay apprised of the outcomes in ongoing lawsuits addressing DEI and DEIA.

How are presidential actions on DEI and DEIA being challenged in court?

A number of lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country to challenge recent presidential actions on DEI and DEIA and federal agencies’ responses to these actions. In many of these cases, the individuals who initiated the lawsuits — also known as plaintiffs — have requested that courts temporarily pause enforcement of the executive actions while the lawsuits proceed. The courts’ decisions about whether to grant these requests, as well as their resolution of the plaintiffs’ underlying arguments that the executive actions are illegal, will affect whether and to what extent the federal administration may implement and enforce the actions.

Many of the ongoing lawsuits challenge certain aspects of Executive Order 14151 and Executive Order 14173, specifically the provisions that affect non-federal actors (for example, directing federal agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants and contracts or requiring federal contractors to make certifications about their DEI and DEIA programs). The plaintiffs in these cases include trade associations, nonprofit organizations, and representatives from state and local governments. While the plaintiffs’ specific arguments in the various lawsuits differ, some common bases for the challenges include the following:

The orders fail to define key terms such as DEI, DEIA, and equity-related, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Due process requires that laws provide fair notice to members of the public by using clear language to describe what they must do to comply.
The orders seek to deter DEI programs and principles, in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Free Speech Clause prohibits the government from restricting speech based on the topics discussed or the viewpoints expressed.
The orders direct federal agencies to terminate congressionally appropriated grants that don’t align with the president’s policy preferences, in violation of separation of powers principles. Separation of powers principles prevent one branch of government from usurping or infringing on powers that the Constitution has delegated to a different branch of government. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress authority to make decisions about federal appropriations and spending — also known as the power of the purse.

In addition, a few lawsuits have been initiated by federal workers who were placed on administrative leave after the agencies that employed them determined that their programs or offices were DEI- or DEIA-related. While the details differ across cases, some common arguments made by these plaintiffs are that their terminations were “arbitrary and capricious” (in other words, irrational), in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and that they were targeted for termination based on assumptions about their viewpoints or political beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment.

How might the recent executive orders on DEI and DEIA affect public health practice?

The president’s recent actions on DEI and DEIA significantly affect public health practitioners who work in federal agencies, as well as those who work in non-federal organizations that have federal grants and contracts (e.g., state and local health departments, educational institutions, nonprofits, philanthropies, and other private organizations). Even for public health practitioners working in organizations that do not currently receive federal funding, such as law firms, the recent actions have chilled (and will likely continue to chill) activities to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

For public health practitioners working in federal agencies, the president’s actions have caused people to lose jobs (either temporarily or permanently) and have affected employees’ health — for example, by delaying or increasing denials of disabled employees’ requests for accommodation. The presidential orders have also caused confusion within federal public health agencies about what they need to do to comply. Some agencies have changed how they communicate with the public about their work — for example, by removing data and information about health equity from their websites. Some agencies are also changing what they work on or prioritize — for example, by terminating programs or offices that focus on equity-related issues or by terminating funding relationships with external organizations that do equity-related work. Loss of data, information, and support for health equity can create critical gaps in knowledge, impeding public health agencies’ ability to fulfill their missions and negatively affecting public health.

For non-federal public health organizations that receive federal funding, recent executive orders have generated confusion and fear about what types of conduct and activities to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion may result in loss of funding, federal enforcement actions, or other negative outcomes. For example, in early March, the National Institutes of Health canceled several grants to academic researchers, citing restrictions on funding for DEI and transgender issues. Whether and to what extent the executive orders apply to non-federal actors, as well as whether they will continue to be implemented and enforced, depends on specific circumstances and on the outcome of ongoing litigation challenging the orders, as described in the preceding section. In the meantime, it is advisable for non-federal actors to consult with an attorney before terminating any DEI or DEIA activities, to assess whether those activities are required or supported by existing federal laws. Preemptive overcompliance could potentially make an organization more vulnerable to claims of unlawful discrimination, result in illegal suppression of speech, or unnecessarily cause organizations to halt mission-driven work aimed at ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to be healthy.

How might I respond to recent federal executive actions on DEI and DEIA?

As previously mentioned, the legality of many of the federal administration’s actions — including how they may affect non-federal actors — is unclear or untested. As various lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions proceed through the courts, it is important for public health practitioners to work with their federal partners and with attorneys to assess risks and consider options. An attorney might help prevent unnecessary overcompliance by providing insight into the following issues:

Whether and how an executive order or other communications from executive branch agencies or officials may affect your work
How to show that your programs, policies, practices, communications, and decisions fulfill your duties under federal and state laws related to nondiscrimination, free speech, and other civil liberties
Whether and how certain responses to the orders constitute illegal suppression of speech
Whether proposed responses are likely to comply with the order or other sources of law (e.g., contracts or state and local law)
The likelihood of federal enforcement
The likelihood of a successful legal challenge to the order or actions taken by executive branch agencies or officials

Other partners, such as state or local government agencies or public health organizations, might be able to share additional insight.

Given the unprecedented scope of these executive actions, answers will not always be clear. Decision making should be made strategically among partners, with the best available information on the importance of practices potentially restricted by an order; the health, fiscal, administrative, or other costs associated with proposed responses to the order; your or your entity’s resources and risk tolerance; and the legality of the order.

When possible, depending on state and local laws and internal policies of their employers, public health practitioners might consider engaging in education and advocacy to influence the national conversation and policy landscape on DEI and DEIA. For example, as federal agencies continue to take actions in response to executive orders on DEI and DEIA, public health practitioners may have opportunities to provide feedback either formally (e.g., through an opportunity to comment on a proposed regulation) or informally via letters, messages, or conversations with federal officials.

Public health practitioners can also share stories about how federal executive actions on DEI and DEIA are negatively affecting their work or community health. In addition to being shared with members of the public (e.g., via blog posts or op-eds), such stories can sometimes become crucial evidence in litigation challenging executive actions on DEI and DEIA. Public health practitioners can also become involved in litigation challenging executive actions on DEI and DEIA either as parties to the lawsuit or as amici. Amici are not parties to the case, but they ask the court for permission to contribute their own perspective on the issues to help the judge or judges make a more informed decision.

In you are interested in participating in litigation as a party or as an amicus, you should work with an attorney. You can also request technical assistance from Act for Public Health.

What if I have additional questions?

An attorney can assist with interpretation and help you understand how specific executive orders might or might not apply to your work. If you do not have legal counsel, you might consider engaging a law firm, a nonprofit organization, or a local law school for representation (paid or pro bono).

You can also submit a request for technical assistance to Act for Public Health if you have additional questions. Although we cannot provide individualized legal advice, we can provide information.

Additional information about recent executive orders and their implications for public health is forthcoming from Act for Public Health. We will update this page with new information as it becomes available.