Corporate America’s deceptive rebranding of DEI initiatives as “belonging” continues discriminatory practices that favor immutable characteristics over merit, defying President Trump’s call for merit-based hiring and potentially violating federal law.
Key Takeaways
- Major corporations like Kohl’s and Nationwide are rebranding DEI initiatives as “belonging” while maintaining the same discriminatory practices
- The FCC is investigating companies like Disney for continuing DEI practices despite cosmetic terminology changes
- Corporate executives claim DEI improves financial performance, with 77% associating such policies with better business outcomes
- Legal experts warn that hiring based on immutable characteristics rather than merit may violate federal anti-discrimination laws
- Conservative consumers are encouraged to boycott companies continuing DEI practices under rebranded terms
Corporate Deception Through Rebranding
Despite President Trump’s clear stance against discriminatory hiring practices, many major corporations are attempting to sidestep scrutiny by simply renaming their controversial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Companies including Kohl’s and Nationwide have rebranded their programs with softer terminology like “Inclusion and Belonging” while continuing practices that prioritize race, gender, and sexual orientation over merit-based considerations. This strategic linguistic shift appears designed to defuse political criticism while maintaining the same underlying policies that many conservatives view as fundamentally discriminatory.
“I want to ensure that Disney ends any and all discriminatory initiatives in substance, not just name,” said FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.
The rebranding effort comes as federal regulatory agencies increase their scrutiny of corporate diversity initiatives. The FCC has launched investigations into several companies, most notably Disney, examining whether their practices constitute illegal discrimination regardless of what terminology they use to describe them. Conservative critics argue that these cosmetic changes represent a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers and shareholders while continuing policies that favor certain demographic groups at the expense of others.
Legal Vulnerabilities and Risks
Corporate executives pushing “belonging” initiatives face significant legal exposure when these programs continue to make employment decisions based on immutable characteristics rather than qualifications and merit. Federal anti-discrimination laws prohibit hiring practices that favor or disfavor applicants based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics. By merely rebranding DEI initiatives while maintaining the same underlying practices, companies are potentially setting themselves up for costly litigation and regulatory penalties under President Trump’s reinvigorated Department of Justice.
Despite these legal risks, a recent study by Catalyst and NYU Law’s Meltzer Center found that 83% of C-suite leaders and 88% of legal leaders believe DEI initiatives actually help mitigate legal risks rather than create them. This striking disconnect between legal reality and executive perception highlights how deeply entrenched progressive ideology has become in corporate America, even as the political landscape has shifted dramatically under President Trump’s leadership. Many corporate boards appear unwilling to acknowledge the changing legal environment.
The Business Case Contradiction
Defenders of DEI policies, now rebranded as “belonging,” continue to argue that these initiatives provide competitive advantages. According to the Catalyst/NYU study, 77% of executives associate DEI policies with improved financial performance. However, these claims stand in stark contrast to the financial performance of many companies that have embraced these ideologies most aggressively, including notable financial losses at companies like Target and Bud Light following backlash to their progressive marketing campaigns.
“Inclusion has never been a liability — it’s a competitive advantage and a business imperative,” said Jennifer McCollum.
The study also claims that 76% of employees, including 86% of Gen Z workers, are more likely to remain with companies that support DEI initiatives. This data point illustrates the challenging environment many companies face, caught between appeasing younger, more progressive employees and respecting the values of their broader customer base, which often skews more conservative. The result is this awkward rebranding exercise, attempting to maintain progressive policies while avoiding the terminology that has become politically radioactive.
Conservative Consumer Response
President Trump’s supporters and conservative consumers are increasingly advocating for economic pressure against companies continuing discriminatory practices under rebranded terminology. The call for consumer boycotts represents a powerful counterforce to corporate DEI initiatives, demonstrating that market forces can effectively respond to ideological overreach in the corporate world. Companies attempting to deceive consumers through superficial rebranding while maintaining the same discriminatory practices risk significant damage to their brand reputation and customer loyalty among conservative Americans.
Conservative advocacy groups are developing resources to track companies that have merely rebranded their DEI initiatives rather than genuinely reforming their hiring and promotion practices to focus on merit. This heightened consumer awareness, combined with potential legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny under the Trump administration, creates substantial pressure for companies to move beyond cosmetic changes and implement genuine reforms that prioritize individual merit over group identity characteristics.
