Major corporations are secretly renaming their controversial DEI policies as “belonging” to avoid Trump’s promised crackdown while continuing the same discriminatory practices that favor hiring based on immutable characteristics rather than merit.
Key Takeaways
- Companies like Kohl’s and Nationwide are rebranding DEI initiatives as “belonging” or “inclusion” to evade political and legal scrutiny while maintaining the same controversial practices.
- The FCC is investigating Disney and other corporations for potentially discriminatory DEI practices despite their surface-level rebranding efforts.
- These corporate policies face criticism for making hiring and promotion decisions based on race, gender, and sexual orientation rather than individual merit and qualifications.
- Despite the backlash, a Catalyst/NYU study claims 80% of C-suite leaders believe maintaining DEI initiatives is crucial for their business, highlighting the ideological divide.
- Consumer advocates are encouraging Americans to boycott companies that continue these practices under new terminology.
The Deceptive Corporate Rebrand
As President Trump’s administration begins dismantling controversial DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs across government agencies, major corporations are attempting to salvage these initiatives through a tactical rebrand. Companies nationwide are now replacing the term “DEI” with softer language like “belonging” or “inclusion” while maintaining fundamentally identical policies. This corporate sleight-of-hand represents a calculated attempt to continue practices that many critics consider discriminatory and potentially illegal, merely concealed under new terminology to avoid public scrutiny and legal challenges.
Kohl’s and Nationwide Insurance exemplify this trend, having replaced their DEI departments with nearly identical programs under names like “Inclusion and Belonging.” These superficial changes don’t address the core criticism of these initiatives: that they base hiring, promotion, and contract decisions on immutable characteristics like race, gender, and sexual orientation rather than individual merit, qualifications, and performance. This approach not only undermines true equality but potentially violates anti-discrimination laws that prohibit preferential treatment based on protected characteristics.
“I want to ensure that Disney ends any and all discriminatory initiatives in substance, not just name,” said FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.
Regulatory Scrutiny and Legal Risks
Federal regulators are not fooled by this cosmetic rebranding. The FCC has launched investigations into Disney’s DEI practices, with Commissioner Brendan Carr explicitly targeting the substance of these policies regardless of their naming conventions. This regulatory pressure reflects growing concerns that these corporate initiatives may violate civil rights laws by creating discriminatory employment practices under the guise of promoting diversity. Companies attempting to avoid litigation through simple terminology changes may find this strategy ultimately backfires as scrutiny intensifies.
The legal vulnerability of these rebranded initiatives stems from their continued emphasis on racial and gender quotas, preferential treatment, and outcome-based hiring rather than equal opportunity. Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark ruling against affirmative action in college admissions, suggest companies may face significant legal liability for maintaining these practices. Corporate executives continuing these policies under new names could potentially expose themselves and their companies to discrimination lawsuits, shareholder actions, and regulatory penalties.
The Corporate Defense
Despite the growing backlash, DEI proponents are doubling down on claims that these initiatives remain essential to business success. A recent study by Catalyst and NYU Law’s Meltzer Center asserts that over 80% of C-suite leaders believe maintaining or expanding DEI programs is crucial for their companies. The study further claims that 83% of executives view these initiatives as mitigating legal risks rather than creating them, a position that stands in stark contrast to the increasing regulatory scrutiny these policies face.
“Inclusion has never been a liability — it’s a competitive advantage and a business imperative,” Jennifer McCollum, CEO of Catalyst.
The same study reports that 77% of executives associate DEI with improved financial performance, while 76% of employees, including 86% of Gen Z workers, claim they are more likely to remain with companies that support such initiatives. These statistics, however, come from organizations with clear ideological commitments to these programs, raising questions about potential selection bias in their research methodologies and conclusions. Critics argue that genuine business performance stems from merit-based hiring and promotion rather than demographic quotas.
Consumer Response and Conservative Action
Conservative consumer advocates are encouraging Americans to vote with their wallets by withholding support from companies that continue these practices under rebranded names. This grassroots response reflects broader conservative frustration with corporate America’s embrace of progressive ideology in hiring and business practices. The boycott strategy aims to create market pressure against companies pursuing these policies, complementing the legal and regulatory challenges these initiatives now face under the Trump administration.
As this corporate rebranding strategy unfolds, consumers and shareholders are increasingly demanding transparency about how hiring and promotion decisions are made. Companies attempting to placate both progressive employees and conservative customers through terminology changes without substantive policy adjustments may find themselves caught in an untenable position. The ultimate resolution may depend on whether corporate America prioritizes merit-based equality of opportunity or continues pursuing demographic equality of outcome under new linguistic disguises.
