Andrew Prokop Profile picture
Jan 22 3 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Trump just issued an order on civil rights that, among other things, revokes the 1965 executive order on affirmative action in federal contracting.

Also declares DEI illegal and tells agencies to encourage private sector companies to stop doing it Image
Image
Image
The 1965 LBJ executive order on affirmative action in federal contracting that Trump just revoked has, in recent years, had a central place in critiques of "woke" civil rights law from the right.

(I wrote the below in 2023. Trump appears to have done what @RichardHanania asked) Image
Trump's executive order on civil rights hasn't hit the WH website yet so here's the text:

01/21/25
EXECUTIVE ORDER
ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND
RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans.  As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans. 

Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) or "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility" (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.

Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.  Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.

These illegal DEI and DEIA policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government, and the medical, aviation, and law-enforcement communities.  Yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed first-hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.

The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws.  The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to protect the civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.  I therefore order all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.  I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.

Sec. 3.  Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government.  (a)  The following executive actions are hereby revoked:
(i)    Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations);
(ii)   Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce);
(iii)  Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); and
(iv)   The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce).
(b)  The Federal contracting process shall be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws.  Accordingly:
(i)    Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), is hereby revoked.  For 90 days from the date of this order, Federal contractors may continue to comply with the regulatory scheme in effect on January 20, 2025.
(ii)   The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease:
(A)  Promoting "diversity";
(B)  Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking "affirmative action"; and
(C)  Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.
(iii)  In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation's civil rights laws.
(iv)   The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:
(A)  A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government's payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and
(B)  A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.
(c)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall:
(i)    Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance;
(ii)   Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and
(iii)  Terminate all "diversity," "equity," "equitable decision-making," "equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance," "advancing equity," and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.

Sec. 4.  Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences.  (a)  The heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work identified in section 2 of this order.
(b)  To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.  The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:
(i)    Key sectors of concern within each agency's jurisdiction;
(ii)   The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern;
(iii)  A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated "DEI" or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.  As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;
(iv)   Other strategies to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all Federal civil-rights laws;
(v)    Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and
(vi)   Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Sec. 6.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7.  Scope.  (a)  This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.
(b)  This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.
(c)  This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c)  This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    January 21, 2025.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Prokop

Andrew Prokop Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @awprokop

Nov 20, 2024
A key reason Biden blundered on inflation is that there was an effective, well-funded, years-long effort to sideline mainstream economists — the people most inclined to warn about inflation— from Democratic policymaking.

So by 2021 no one on his team took the threat seriously
So far as we know, the only Biden official who internally expressed concerns that the American Rescue Plan might be too big was Joe Biden (whose reasoning was, “seems too big to pass”). But when Schumer told him it wasn’t too big to pass he went along. Image
Was there an internal debate in which some key appointees said “I don’t know, Mr. President, seems a lot bigger than the output gap merits, could be real inflationary risks”?

If there was, word of it has never leaked.
Read 4 tweets
Jul 13, 2024
Here’s how I think about Project 2025’s policies - in 3 groups.

1.) Centralizing presidential authority over the executive branch
2.) Longtime conservative priorities
3.) A very aggressive religious right agenda, especially on abortion
Image
Image
The Heritage Foundation has been doing Project 2025-esque stuff for decades but there are some different dynamics this cycle due to Trump’s close ties with Heritage, and his own former appointees lying in wait to return to office and correct his first term mistakes

Image
Image
Image
That’s particularly evident in the Project’s focus on amping up the number and power of political appointees (relative to career civil servants) throughout the executive branch, especially at the Justice Department
Image
Image
Read 7 tweets
Mar 20, 2023
The tangled, nearly 7-year saga of the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal and investigations that has resulted in Trump now being on the verge of indictment, explained

vox.com/policy-and-pol…
THE PAYOFF: The month before the 2016 election, Stormy Daniels prepared to come forward alleging a consensual sexual encounter with Trump 10 years prior — but let it be known she'd accept payment for her silent.

Michael Cohen sent the payment, $130,000, on October 27, 2016. Image
INVESTIGATION 1 (FEDS): When SDNY prosecutors investigated Cohen, they argued the $130,000 payment violated federal campaign finance laws, since it was meant to help Trump win the election.

Cohen pleaded guilty to this and other charges. But the theory was never tested in court Image
Read 7 tweets
Mar 17, 2023
Hunter Biden has filed a countersuit against the computer repair store owner who provided his emails and files to Trump allies.

It's interesting to look very closely at which claims Hunter explicitly denies and which he claims not to have knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny
Hunter denies he was referred to the repair store.

Hunter says he lacks the knowledge to confirm or deny whether he asked the repairman to recover info from damaged computers and whether he himself returned to the shop the next day
So this is not an outright denial that Hunter dropped his laptops off at the repair store. Instead it seems to point to a "I don't remember" (implicitly: "I was too wasted" defense)
Read 5 tweets
Mar 16, 2023
This seems in very poor taste to me.

Its roots however go back much further than the Great Awokening!

The first version of this exercise I can find online is from the year 1998 (thread cont'd)
Here we have the same exercise, "Whom to Leave Behind," but with different identities. Race is only explicitly mentioned for one person on the list. It's dated 1998 at the bottom.

home.snu.edu/~jsmith/librar…
The version with the rather absurd identities list shows up in a "Diversity Activities" packet uploaded in 2015.

The only instructions given are to talk about it. It seems like a kinda ridiculous, Michael Scott-esque poor taste team-building exercise

solarev.org/migration/wp-c…
Read 5 tweets
Mar 14, 2023
Thoughtful @henrygrabar piece on how the city-dwellers worrying about a "crime" problem seem to actually be worrying about a "public disorder" problem.

slate.com/business/2023/… Image
You can imagine a spectrum from “total anarchy” to “authoritarian clampdown."

Current debate is between those who think cities have gotten too disorderly and need more order, vs. those suspicious attempts to enforce more order will inevitably be discriminatory & authoritarian
Another installment of the debate here.

The reason the tide seems to be turning somewhat toward the "more order" camp, it seems to me, is that the "less order" camp doesn't seem to have a solution, focusing instead on denying there's any problem

latimes.com/california/sto… ImageImage
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(