Here are all the tech companies rolling back DEI or still committed to it — so far

Tech Crunch - Apr 17th, 2025

In response to new directives from the Trump administration, numerous American companies are scaling back or completely eliminating their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The move follows an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump that bans DEI practices within federal agencies. Attorney General Pam Bondi has further instructed the Department of Justice to investigate DEI programs in private companies receiving federal funds, prompting backlash and compliance from various sectors. Companies such as McDonald’s, Walmart, and Target have announced changes to their DEI commitments, while others like Apple and Costco continue to support diversity efforts.

This shift in corporate DEI policies reflects significant political and legal pressures, highlighting a broader cultural and administrative shift in the U.S. The implications of these changes are vast, potentially affecting workplace diversity and inclusion efforts nationwide. Some tech giants, like Google and Amazon, are also reviewing their DEI initiatives to ensure compliance with the new executive orders, signaling a cautious approach to maintaining diversity commitments amid growing scrutiny. The rollback of DEI programs may influence corporate culture, employee morale, and public perception, as the balance between legal compliance and social responsibility becomes increasingly complex.

Donald Trump Elon Musk Corporate Policy Pam Bondi Dei Diversity And Inclusion Executive Order Federal Government

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the rollback of DEI initiatives among major companies, reflecting a significant and timely trend influenced by political and legal changes. The story is largely accurate, with most claims corroborated by external sources, though some specific details require further verification. The article is clear and engaging, effectively communicating the issue to a general audience. However, it could benefit from a more balanced exploration of perspectives and greater transparency regarding sources and methodology. Overall, the article successfully highlights an important topic of public interest and sets the stage for further discussion on the implications of these changes.

Accuracy

The story is largely accurate, with most claims about companies rolling back DEI initiatives being supported by independent sources. For example, the article correctly identifies that companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google have reduced DEI efforts, as confirmed by external reports. However, there are minor discrepancies, such as the lack of verification for specific claims about PBS and Goldman Sachs. Overall, the story accurately reflects the trend of DEI rollback in response to political and legal pressures, though some specific details require further verification.

Balance

The story primarily focuses on the rollback of DEI programs, providing a detailed account of companies reducing their diversity efforts. It mentions a few companies, like Apple and Costco, that continue to support DEI, but the emphasis is heavily on the rollback trend. This creates an imbalance, as the perspective of companies maintaining their DEI commitments is less explored. Additionally, the article does not delve into the potential benefits or drawbacks of these rollbacks, which could provide a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. The language is straightforward, making it easy for readers to understand the main points. However, the article could benefit from clearer distinctions between confirmed facts and claims that require further verification, which would enhance overall comprehension.

Source quality

The story appears to use credible sources, as many claims are corroborated by independent reports. However, the article does not explicitly cite these sources, which makes it difficult to assess their reliability fully. The lack of direct attribution to specific reports or statements from companies or officials weakens the perceived authority of the information presented.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of sourcing and methodology. It does not disclose how the information was gathered or which specific sources were consulted. This lack of transparency makes it challenging for readers to assess the basis of the claims and the potential biases in the reporting. Additionally, the article does not discuss any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the impartiality of the information.