By Kunle Olulode, director of Voice4Change England
This is the second blog in a three-part series. We recommend reading the introduction and part two for the full picture.
Trump delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2025. During his speech, he stated federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives would be discontinued. This was reinforced the following day when he signed an executive order placing all US government employees involved in DEI work on paid administrative leave.
This, in turn, put the spotlight on corporate businesses such as McDonald’s and META who decided to scale back on EDI efforts. META specifically upset their workforce in the UK.
Prospect Assistant Secretary representing staff, Andrew Sturtevant, said: “Our members are concerned over Meta’s future direction and the potential impact of policy changes on employees and on the company’s reputation.”
These developments have heightened worries in UK workplaces, with many fearing that other employers may follow suit, potentially undermining progress in diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Occupational Health Assessment conducted a survey involving over 140 UK companies. The results revealed that 69% of HR professionals surveyed believe the rapid decline of diversity and inclusion projects in the United States is likely to impact British workplaces and existing equality, diversity, and inclusion policies.
Personally, I’ve never been one to blanket support all EDI initiatives. Many, though well meaning, can be performative. It is no surprise to see how quickly those same corporate forces calling for changes in the workplace have abandoned the quest. Trump’s post-election attacks merely accentuated a trend that was already in play.
Moreover, being critical of EDI does not immediately mean support for racism, sexism homophobia, or other forms of bigotry and discrimination. Those who have pushed back against the rise of the ‘woke agenda’ were not long ago considered radical and progressive. They were concerned about the potential division and a divisive shift in identity leaning politics of the potential risks of pitching groups against one another according to race, gender and sexuality. Many EDI critics are also concerned about growing hostility to fundamental progressive ideas of free speech, tolerance, civil rights and democracy.
People have grown cautious of EDI—not because of its core principles of opportunity, understanding, and success, but because in some instances, it has been driven by a vocal minority pushing rigid agendas. The memorandum has shifted from inclusion to ultimatum: conform or be labelled as hateful, offensive, or discriminatory. Rather than nurturing open discussion and doing what Dr Sanjiv Lingayah described as ‘the heavy lifting’, this undertaking has often demanded immediate change, leaving little room for incremental change or the option to explore alternative possibilities. As a result, the fundamental values of EDI have been overshadowed by the loudest voices in the room.
The Home Truths initiative has never done this. It has always striven to be genuinely nuanced and inclusive, while some EDI initiatives have alienated the very people they aimed to engage. In my view, diversity statements that feel performative rather than authentic erode trust. Policies meant to create safe spaces sometimes shut down difficult but necessary conversations. The push back we’re witnessing isn’t necessarily a rejection of equalities but rather a sign that it needs recalibration.
What might that look like?
Well, firstly, equality programmes should be about talent, not ideology. Secondly, creating a culture of constructive criticism, encouraging alternative views on policy or challenges. Programme leaders must ensure that inclusion efforts focus on all staff — not, as is often the case, including some people and, in the process, excluding others. Diversity of thought, regardless of groups or categories, could potentially make real gains.
Finally, ensuring the quality of EDI training is at a good level is critical — so much of what has been criticised can be traced back to poor-quality training, often led by people who have failed to understand the Equality Act and case law.
If we were looking at a third phase of Home Truths, then recalibration would be a prominent feature going forward. It’s not Trump and his hostility to all things linked to equalities we should be worried about, Home Truths’ relevance depends on being self- aware enough to find a way to plot a more agile approach to EDI—one that values dialogue over demands, balance over extremes, and action over empty gestures.