DEI crackdown sparks quiet tech rollback

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

LeadDev’s Engineering Leadership Report 2025 shows that DEI remains on the agenda – but is a shifting political landscape quietly reshaping how it’s prioritized and practiced?

Corporate diversity efforts have come under increased investor scrutiny in the technology sector, particularly in response to President Donald Trump’s stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) since taking office.

Many global tech companies introduced DEI programs years ago to address long-standing workforce disparities. These initiatives have typically included hiring targets, supplier diversity mandates, and executive performance metrics tied to DEI outcomes.

However, President Trump has publicly criticized DEI policies in the U.S., labeling them “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral,” and dismissing them as “nonsense.” 

In January 2025, Trump signed two executive orders targeting DEI initiatives in federal contractors and public corporations, prompting major firms such as Google, Meta, and Amazon to scale back related programs.

Still, according to LeadDev’s Engineering Leadership Report 2025, only 5% of companies have completely abandoned DEI efforts.

The report found that a majority of respondents (56%) still view DEI as an organizational priority, while 18% believe these initiatives are being deprioritized. 

Meanwhile, 14% said DEI was never a priority in their organizations, and 7% reported that their organizations are actually increasing their focus on DEI heading into 2025.

The silent rollback

While markers from LeadDev’s Engineering Leadership Report 2025 show that DEI remains a corporate interest, Jessie Auguste, Software Engineer at CybSafe, says that “the reality is more nuanced.”

According to Auguste, while companies are not openly eliminating DEI programs, many are undermining them by “quietly defunding them, reducing headcount, and letting initiatives ‘sunset’ without replacement.” 

This retreat creates a disconnect between public messaging and internal realities, leaving tech professionals from diverse backgrounds feeling abandoned “even if the corporate messaging remains unchanged.” 

Auguste notes that what’s often missing from both media narratives and company statements is the everyday impact: “the mentorship program that doesn’t get renewed, the ERG that loses its budget, the diversity metrics that stop being tracked.” 

In December 2024, Amazon executive Candi Castleberry wrote in an internal memo to employees that the company was “winding down outdated programs and materials” related to DEI by the end of the year. 

“Rather than having individual groups build programs, we are focusing on programs with proven outcomes – and we also aim to foster a more truly inclusive culture,” Castleberry wrote in the note. 

By February 2025, Amazon had removed nearly all references to “diversity” and “inclusion” from its corporate reports.

Meta announced in January 2025 that it would be ending its DEI programs and integrating those functions into broader HR operations. 

In an internal memo, Vice President of Human Resources Janelle Gale explained that the “legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing,” and noted that the term “DEI” has become “charged” because some view it as implying preferential treatment. 

The memo confirmed Meta would eliminate its DEI team and transition chief diversity officer Maxine Williams into a new role centered on accessibility and engagement.

More recently, Google withdrew its backing of over 50 DEI-related organizations, where several regional diversity leads were reassigned or had their roles eliminated.  

While public messaging continued to emphasize inclusion, internal language shifted toward “workforce optimization” and “merit-based progression.”

These moves, Auguste explained, have the same practical effect as eliminating DEI programs, but allow companies to avoid public backlash.

Sally Lait, a senior technology leader and advisor, noted that she has also seen a similar pattern where “organizations have shifted course, reducing or eliminating teams.”

“It’s also important to view these developments in the broader context of industry-wide trends such as layoffs, where DEI-related cuts may happen alongside reductions in other areas. A more compelling story can be spun about DEI reductions rather than, say, changes to Engineering or Talent staffing,” she added.

UK tech isn’t immune 

While the U.S. dominates headlines with high-profile DEI rollbacks, the UK’s response is less visible – but no less real. 

“The UK has the Equality Act, which gives us a floor the U.S. doesn’t have – but the reality is more complex than just the legal framework,” Auguste explains. 

The UK Equality Act 2010 is a law that protects individuals from discrimination, harassment, and victimization based on protected characteristics such as age, race, sex, disability, religion, and sexual orientation. But it does not provide cultural immunity.

That complexity stems largely from funding structures. “Many UK tech companies are funded by U.S. venture capital,” Auguste says. 

For example, in 2024, 42% of all UK tech venture capital came from U.S. investors, and notably, U.S. firms accounted for 58% of late-stage funding deals exceeding $100 million.

“So when U.S. investors start questioning DEI spend in board meetings, that pressure flows straight from Silicon Valley to London, Manchester, and Edinburgh.”

UK-founded startups with American investors are beginning to scale back their DEI efforts – “quietly, but deliberately,” Auguste says, “because they don’t want to appear out of step with the rest of their investors’ portfolios.”

That same pressure is being felt in the UK offices of major U.S. multinationals. 

According to Auguste, local teams are aligning with headquarters’ changing approach to DEI, which is being presented as a push for “global consistency.”

UK companies now find themselves in the middle of a growing tension between investor priorities and employee values as “UK tech professionals still expect equality to be part of workplace culture,” she says. 

The infrastructure supporting inclusion in the UK may stay protected thanks to the Equality Act, but enthusiasm for bold, innovative DEI initiatives is waning. “Companies that might’ve led on inclusion are now taking a wait-and-see approach…watching what happens in the U.S. before committing further.” Auguste says. 

Inclusion without permission

In the wake of President Trump’s executive orders and the resulting recalibration by major tech firms, formal DEI structures may be dissolving, but that hasn’t stopped leaders from remaining central to maintaining inclusive cultures.

“There are leaders in highly pressured or politically sensitive environments who may need to be more cautious in how they speak about these issues,” Lait explains.

“But that makes it all the more important for those of us with the power and privilege to do so, to be visible and vocal.”

Lait underscores that leaders act as catalysts for meaningful change in both tech and society, shaping new norms and setting high standards even amid the political pressures stemming from policies in the U.S.

“For those of us in leadership positions, where possible I’d urge everyone to continue to build DEI principles into your work. Our leadership directly affects people’s wellbeing and lives, and that responsibility cannot be overstated,” she stated.

Auguste adds that some engineering leaders are translating these principles into measurable actions rather than statements, embedding psychological safety in concrete ways. 

Teams run surveys asking questions like, “How comfortable are you disagreeing with technical decisions?” because, as Auguste puts it, “when engineers hold back for fear of backlash, architecture decisions weaken.

When more people engage in architectural discussions, systems become more maintainable; when knowledge is shared broadly, production incidents decrease; and when trust is widespread, teams catch more bugs,” says Auguste.

Auguste acknowledges the heavy toll placed on marginalized individuals, stating, “Yes, I’m concerned about the burden placed on marginalized individuals to be their own safety nets. We’ve survived worse, and we’ll survive this.”