EDI in uncertain times: when doing the right thing gets complicated
By Sharon Peake, Priscila Pereira and Helena Wacko, Shape Talent
Since the inauguration of the new U.S. administration, a wave of executive orders – including attacks on the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) movement, and with a particular focus on trans and non-binary people – has left many questioning how to respond and what might come next. While this is specific to the U.S., its ripple effects are already being felt as major multinational corporations reconsider their diversity commitments: do they reverse, maintain the status quo, or double down?
This moment demands serious reflection on how to best navigate this juncture. Anti-EDI and anti-gender rhetoric is being weaponised in new ways, making it crucial for organisations and individuals committed to gender equity to strategise effectively. At Shape Talent, we support leaders navigating this complexity while staying true to equity, fairness and levelling the playing field. Our commitment to gender equity remains firm and we recognise that while the legal and political landscape is shifting, our purpose – to create fair and inclusive workplaces – will not waver.
The Escalation of Anti-EDI Measures
On 27th January, a concerning executive order from the White House instructed all federal agencies to dismantle all EDI offices, followed by orders on EDI programmes in the federal government and in the private sector. Simultaneously, the government moved to the legal recognition of only two sexes, reifying reductive biological arguments that threaten the rights and recognitions of trans and non-binary people. These moves are part of broader and ongoing efforts of the new Trump administration to challenge and roll back diversity-focused initiatives. However, these executive orders are not going unchallenged, having already faced a series of challenges, appeals and lawsuits in response.[1] In response this is a rapidly evolving landscape that demands constant vigilance. While these actions are not isolated and transatlantic ripples are already being felt, it is important to consider how European measures can continue to guide EDI, particularly in light of the rising anxieties that are undoubtedly crossing over. The EU’s Gender Equality Strategy has driven key legislative advances, including the EU Pay Transparency Directive to address gender pay gaps and the Women on Boards Directive for greater gender balance in corporate leadership. The Directive on Work-Life Balance for Parents and Carers has also expanded parental and paternity leave, supporting a more equitable division of caregiving. In addition, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which requires companies to report on gender equality metrics, came into force in 2023. Turning to these meaningful legislative advances, and protecting them, especially against rising uncertainty of ripple effects, is central.
In contrast, returning to the US, it is crucial to recognise that the groundwork for this moment has been taking root for some time, precisely through the upending of legislative advances for inclusion. Already in 2023, when affirmative action in college admissions was ruled unconstitutional, a precedent was set that allowed lawsuits to challenge EDI efforts in the American workplace. In the first year alone, 68 lawsuits were filed against EDI initiatives and began to unravel the tapestry of EDI (read more about the rise of anti-EDI sentiment in our earlier piece here.) And now, in 2025, the number of S&P 500 companies mentioning “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in their filings has dropped by almost 60 percent compared to 2024, with some especially avoiding “equity” due to the increased scrutiny it attracts compared to “diversity” or “inclusion.” [2] For some EDI advocates, this rapid reversal “underscored the shallowness of some of the initial commitments”.[3] Yet, as Laura Sherbin from Seramount notes, “Embracing constructive scepticism can drive the development of more meaningful and effective DEI programmes.”[4]
While the US legislative measures are turning away from positive action* programmes, the EU – in contrast – has been reinforcing the value of them through the aforementioned EU Gender Equality Strategy. Similarly, at Shape Talent, we believe that in a time of rising anti-EDI sentiment, businesses must understand that doing the right thing may look different, but the purpose and values driving gender equity must remain intact.
Understanding the Backlash, “Weaponised Victimhood” & cutting through the political noise
And so, while the framing of EDI as “divisive” or even “discriminatory” is not a new development, its amplification at the federal level in the U.S. has emboldened corporate and legal challenges to inclusive policies, as well as a retreat from overt commitments. These actions disproportionately affect the most marginalised people in the workplace (such as trans and non-binary individuals, women, and racialised groups) who bear the brunt of these attacks. As Lilie Chouliaraki’s concept of “weaponised victimhood” explains, those opposing EDI have strategically mobilised a narrative of “being wronged,” or “left out” for political gain.[5] For example, with arguments that EDI measures “discriminate against white people and men.”[6] In turn, this narrative and strategic language misrepresents gender equity and diversity efforts as a zero-sum game, where one groups rights comes at the cost of another.
EDI, including gender equity, is about fairness for all genders and redressing systemic imbalances (see more in our recent blog on men and gender equity here). While the backlash narrative in the US is rampant and that harmful rhetoric is on the rise, it is also important to recognise that there is still a stronghold of opinions for gender equity and the nuances of this situation.[7] While legislative actions are regressive, public opinion often tells a different story – and again we must pay attention to where we are situated geographically. For example, research from Seramount suggests that, to the contrary, the US public remains more supportive of EDI than many realise. [8] And globally, according to a recent Ipsos survey across 30 countries, the majority of young men are in favour of gender equity.[9] Findings like these reaffirm why we must listen carefully amidst the political noise, and why in this moment we must not only respond to policy shifts but also address the perceptions and anxieties that are being formed amongst employees and stakeholders.
The role of anti-trans narratives in gender backlashes
The increase in transphobic rhetoric and harmful legislation, which erases the lives of trans people in the U.S. and places them in an increasingly hostile environment, is particularly alarming. The executive order on “gender ideology” falsely claims to protect women while denying the existence and rights of those who identify outside the traditional gender binary and is at odds with best practices in medicine and psychology”.[10] Researchers are already predicating “these policy changes are likely to increase violence and discrimination against transgender people, with negative downstream effects on their mental and physical health” – undoubtedly, there are implications for trans people in the workplace.[11] Trans inclusion has been deliberately positioned as a wedge issue, with trans women unfairly framed as threats to cis women’s safety, fuelling harmful gender backlash. This is a critical reminder of the urgent need for intersectional gender equity work – because splitting our commitment to inclusion puts us at risk of undermining everyone’s progress. Shape Talent’s gender equity work remains inclusive of trans and non-binary individuals, recognising that true gender equity can only be achieved by addressing the experiences of all women, including the most marginalised. Ultimately, these legal and political actions do not simply affect abstract debates; they threaten the very dignity and safety of countless individuals.
Practical Advice for Leaders Navigating This Moment
Right now, leaders must communicate the importance of EDI work more effectively than ever. Leaders must stay informed by tracking both US and EU legislative developments and understanding their commercial and cultural implications. Remaining anchored in purpose is key – even if that means adjusting messaging to reach new audiences. This moment presents an opportunity to become a talent magnet by doing the right thing; those disenfranchised employees working for organisations that have quickly abandoned their EDI programmes will eventually leave for employers who align better with their values.
Doing the right thing at this juncture means supporting your teams by proactively checking in with employees, particularly those from marginalised groups directly impacted by shifting rhetoric and policy changes. Moreover, it also means mitigating risks by preparing for heightened tensions and polarisation in teams. If left unchecked, this could lead to disengagement and the loss of valuable talent. And finally, reviewing your internal policies to ensure they safeguard against rising microaggressions, and discrimination is crucial.
Partnering with Shape Talent
Pushback only underscores the importance of the issue, and whilst it is a moment of reckoning, it is also one of opportunity: to reaffirm values, to resist division, and to build a future where gender equity is not just an initiative but an enduring commitment. History shows us that pushback often precedes leaps in progress. Our clients champion fairness because they understand that business success and fairness are intertwined. If your organisation needs support to navigate these complexities, protect your progress, and stay true to your equity commitments, Shape Talent is here to help. We invite leaders to review current strategies through the lens of values-based leadership, equip teams with the language, data, and confidence to defend gender equity work, and adapt – not retreat – in response to these evolving pressures.
* Note: Positive action supports underrepresented groups by providing opportunities such as mentorship and targeted outreach. Positive discrimination, which is generally unlawful, involves selecting someone based solely on identity rather than merit.
References
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/us/trump-administration-lawsuits.html
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/13/business/corporate-america-dei-policy-shifts.html
[6] https://www.ft.com/content/5a69bc70-de6c-43ca-8cb7-5824e359110a
[8] https://seramount.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/What-a-Second-Trump-Term-Means-for-DEI-Revised.pdf)