President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded to the tragedy of an American Eagle flight colliding with an Army Black Hawk helicopter by suggesting that previous administrations’ diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives were to blame.
It is shameful that Trump and Hegseth are politicizing a tragedy that killed all 67 people aboard the two aircraft.
Attacking DEI before anyone knows what happened creates a pre-emptive scapegoat scenario. If anyone flying the plane or the helicopter or directing those aircraft at Reagan National Airport tower is anything other than white, straight and male, then they will be presumed in this administration’s eyes to have been promoted beyond their talent or intellect.
It is shameful that Trump and Hegseth are politicizing a tragedy that killed all 67 people aboard the two aircraft. The real focus should be on the victims, the cause of the crash and air safety in America. But here we are with Hegseth looking straight into the camera to declare “the era of DEI is over at the Defense Department” — a non sequitur that upstaged the condolences and empathy those suffering a grievous loss deserve right now. Indeed, the compassion the entire country deserves — because who in America isn’t rattled by the collision of two aircraft just miles from the Pentagon and the White House?
The immediate and unsubstantiated insinuation that diversity was a factor in this crash underscores what should have been obvious when Trump, as one of his first moves in office, signed an executive order abolishing DEI programs and placed DEI officers in government on leave. The president can talk about lowering the price of eggs and making America safer and more secure. But changing the shape and complexion of America’s workforce are clearly at the top of his agenda.
His administration’s anti DEI objective has tied diversity to unearned advancement and Thursday’s bizarre press conference — with the entire world watching — advanced that agenda. Anti-DEI forces have been hawking this trope for years and sadly it has worked. Many Americans now automatically think the acronym stands for a hiring schematic that fast-tracks Black people and other people of color into positions for which they’re not qualified.
Anti-DEI forces have been hawking this trope for years and sadly it has worked.
That is a calculated distortion of the truth, and yet defenders of diversity have not found effective language or strategies to counter this full-on assault on inclusion.
Let’s begin with the smear about lowered standards. DEI programs at their best are about widening the pool of talent to make sure employers find excellence wherever it exists and make those employees feel respected and valued so they stick around. Retention is always a big challenge for businesses. Creating an environment that fosters belonging and respect across differences allows employers to get a strong return on their investment when they onboard new workers. DEI, then, is an invitation to look beyond traditional pathways and pipelines and to retain that talent once they’re hired.
The slander that DEI undermines meritocracy is supremely ironic coming from an administration that has asked taxpayers to accept a series of Cabinet picks whose lack of experience would disqualify them for a leadership job in the private sector. As the administration rails against DEI hires, it has created a new class of employees who could be classified under a LBM heading. Loyalty before merit.
I’ve written on this page before about how widening its aperture helped the Army identify Colin Powell as an officer candidate. It looked more broadly at applicants who were all held to the same standards for merit and valor. Corporations, schools, hospitals and, yes, the government have used this expanded vision to diversify their ranks and, yet, too many have been silent about the benefits of being inclusive.
Meanwhile, words such as diversity, inclusion, quota, affirmative action and equity have been demonized and then weaponized and fully aerosolized in carefully constructed and well-funded campaigns to make people believe undeserving applicants are snatching opportunity away from hardworking Americans. The belief becomes that Black, brown or tan people are leapfrogging over more deserving white people. It strokes anger and indigestion, and that’s exactly why the anti-DEI campaigns have been so effective.
There is a strong defense for diversity in America. Unfortunately — and this is sadly ironic — the case has not always been made by a fully diverse cohort of defenders. That’s sad because DEI initiatives benefit a broad class of people that cuts across race, class, ethnicity and gender including Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, disabled people and members of the LGBTQ community. In some cases, DEI programs have been expanded to include people from underrepresented places such as rural and exurban communities or those who follow different educational paths through trade schools, apprenticeship programs and community colleges.
Women of all colors are actually the biggest beneficiaries, and white women in particular have advanced through these programs.
There is a strong defense for diversity in America. Unfortunately the case has not always been made by a fully diverse cohort of defenders.
But if we are honest, the people often making the loudest and most passionate defense of diversity programs are Black people — and that can underscore the mistaken assumption that DEI is largely a leg up for Black folks.
I am cognizant of this even as I write this column. I know that there are people who will secretly cop to being exhausted by what they see as a constant focus on race. And, yes, I also know there are people who believe passionately in inclusion but think the methods for getting there have felt like ham-handed hectoring.
But if the aim is admirable, then why not follow that old standard introduced during the Clinton administration’s review of affirmative action? Mend it, don’t end it.








