Tik Tok has Cracked the U.S. Constitution, Why Doesn’t Anyone Care?

By: Jared Fischer

Edited by: Lauren Levinson and anna dellit

Today, you don’t have to use TikTok to understand the mobile app’s importance. The popular Chinese-owned social media platform boasted 170 million active American users as of January 2024, and has been the topic of much discourse as its popularity has grown. [1] Federal officials initially raised concerns about TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, in July of 2020, when then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo first announced that the U.S. was considering banning the app from American users, citing concerns about data theft and content censorship by Chinese government officials. [2] Since then, TikTok has been subject to multiple federal investigations, Congressional probes, and even outright bans. In an extremely polarized America, the issue seemingly defies political conventions––the app has been criticized by members of both major American political parties and bans have been attempted by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Still, few government officials, outside of vague platitudes, have been overly forthcoming about the specific national security threats posed by TikTok. Today, although the platform is technically banned in the U.S., TikTok remains operational due to President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump’s decision to not enforce the legislation banning the app, legislation that they each once supported. 

1. Background

The first time the Federal Government attempted to ban TikTok was in 2020. Soon after Secretary of State Pompeo’s initial announcement about the potential national security concerns associated with TikTok’s, on August 6, 2020, President Trump signed an executive order banning Tik Tok, as well as the Chinese messaging app, We Chat, from operating in the U.S. if not sold to an American company. [3] The President’s executive action was met with legal challenges from both apps, with TikTok claiming Trump’s executive order to be unlawful on multiple fronts. [4] First, TikTok argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the piece of legislation Trump claimed gave him the authority to ban the platform without Congress, specifically prevents the kind of action that Trump was aiming to accomplish by banning TikTok. The IEEPA was passed by Congress in 1977 and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The Act gives the President special powers to regulate international commerce during national emergencies. As such, it was under the jurisdiction of the IEEPA that Trump aimed to force ByteDance’s sale of TikTok. However, the IEEPA specifically prohibits the President from using the Act to limit access to foreign materials covered by the First Amendment, including personal communications technology, which TikTok argued included its social media platform. [5] Additionally, TikTok claimed Trump’s executive order violated its 5th Amendment right to due process. [6]

TikTok’s lawsuit against the Trump administration never came to fruition, however, as on September 27, the day before the first stages of the ban were set to begin, a federal judge granted the platform an injunction against the presidential order calling for its sale. [7] In his decision, Judge Carl Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the TikTok’s lawsuit against Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, given the IEEPA’s prohibition on executive action against communications technology. Judge Nichols also appeared to agree with TikTok’s 5th Amendment argument, citing the executive order’s potential to “erod[e] TikTok’s competitive position.” [8] Then, in June of 2021, newly elected President Biden revoked the original Trump executive order seeking to ban TikTok. [9] Consequently, TikTok v. Trump was dismissed. [10]

2. Congress Intervenes

Despite President Biden’s intervention to end his predecessor’s move to force TikTok’s sale to an American company, Biden did not rule out future action to restrict the app’s presence in the United States. For instance, in December of 2022, Biden signed the No TikTok on Government Devices Act, included in that year’s omnibus budget bill, which prohibits the use of TikTok on government devices. [11] Many state governments have since adopted similar legislation. Additionally, throughout Biden’s presidency, numerous acts were introduced in Congress aimed at limiting social media corporations’, including TikTok’s, ability to access user data. Finally, in April of 2024, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) was signed by President Biden. PAFACA, similar to Trump’s 2020 executive order, seeks to ban TikTok from the U.S., unless ByteDance divests of its controlling share in the platform. [12] Again, little evidence was made available to the public regarding the security risks presented by the app, though PAFACA’s bipartisan support in both The House of Representatives and the Senate, to many Americans, suggested valid concern. According to PAFACA, if TikTok was not sold to an American owner by January 19, 2025, the app would become unavailable to users in the United States.

3. TikTok v. Garland

Only a few weeks after Congress moved to force TikTok’s divestiture from ByteDance, the company filed suit against the U.S. Government. Unlike TikTok’s case against Donald Trump, however, the platform was left with fewer avenues of dispute. In the app’s 2020 suit, TikTok argued that Trump, as President of the United States, lacked the authority to ban TikTok through executive action. However, since Congress adopted PAFACA, TikTok could no longer use that reasoning. Instead, in 2024, the platform’s central argument against its forced sale rested on Americans’ 1st Amendment rights. TikTok contended that since PAFACA constituted a de-facto ban of the app’s operations in the United States, that it worked to suppress free expression. [13]

Once it became clear that the fate of TikTok would be determined by the Supreme Court, many major civil liberties and 1st Amendment advocacy groups voiced their support for TikTok’s argument, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). In its amici curiae brief to the Court, FIRE specifically pointed out that the government had yet to provide the public substantial evidence on the dangers TikTok posed to Americans, while also explaining that upholding legislation banning the app would counter almost 250 years historical protections for free speech. [14] However, the Supreme Court did not see eye-to-eye with outside civil liberties advocates. In a rare unanimous decision, the Court upheld PAFACA. The Court reasoned that since PAFACA only aims to regulate TikTok’s ownership, not content, that it does not violate the 1st Amendment, even if its de-facto effect is the removal of a major mode of online expression.  [15]

4. Political Football

The federal reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision broke along political lines, informed by the radically reshaped electoral dynamics of the 2024 presidential election. While PAFACA enjoyed bipartisan support when it was adopted, seemingly neither party wanted to own its outcome. The Democrats, reeling from their loss of both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, partially due to declines in support from young people, were not keen to be seen as the party that had banned TikTok, despite the fact that it was President Biden that had signed the legislation banning the app. The Republicans, on the other hand, hoping to retain their newfound Gen. Z support, as well as in recognition of the utility of TikTok as a political messaging platform, also showed little motivation to own the ban, despite the party’s hawkish posture towards China. The date of the ban’s commencement, January 19, 2025, was also awkward, being Joe Biden’s last day as President of the United States before handing the White House over to Trump’s second term. With these factors in mind, Biden made the decision to refuse to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling on TikTok, practically (and, arguably, unconstitutionally), vetoing a law he himself had signed. Despite Biden’s assurances, TikTok did go dark for around twelve hours, only to be revived, ostensibly by President Trump, who extended PAFACA’s allowance of a 90-day extension to the law’s sell-by date in order to facilitate a sale, despite no public knowledge of a live deal. [16] As of April 2025, TikTok continues to be available in the United States.

The executive decision not to enforce rulings made by the Supreme Court is not completely unprecedented in American history. Famously, Andrew Jackson, the President of the United States from 1829-1839, is once thought to have said “John Marshall [the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court] has made his decision, now let’s see him enforce it,” in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia, which sought to prevent the forced removal of the Cherokee Tribe from the state, though historians debate whether he actually used these words. [17] Yet, rebuking the authority of the Supreme Court has taken on new salience in recent years. Among American progressives, perception that the Court is unfairly slanted towards conservative opinion has made questioning the legitimacy, utility, and structure of the Supreme Court normal conversation. Additionally, even before Biden refused to enforce the Court’s decision in TikTok v. Garland, the President made a show of his disagreement with the Court on the topic of student loan debt forgiveness, though he complied with the Court in reality. [18] Today, many have pointed out President Trump’s apparent willingness to violate court decrees, especially in relation to the unprecedented levels of constitutionally dubious executive action favored by his administration. The Supreme Court’s salience in American life has grown increasingly heavy as Congress has shied away from its role as the sole federal law-making body in the United States. As long as Congress refuses to make hard decisions and relies on the Supreme Court to resolve the country’s pressing policy crises, questioning and disobeying the decisions of the Court threatens to become a common phenomenon in American political life.  

Notes:

1. TikTok Newsroom Staff. “TikTok CEO’s Show Chew’s Opening Statement.” Tik Tok Newsroom, January 31, 2024. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/opening-statement-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing.

2. Arjun, Kharpal. “U.S. is 'looking at' banning TikTok and Chinese social media apps, Pompeo says.” CNBC, July 7, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/us-looking-at-banning-tiktok-and-chinese-social-media-apps-pompeo.html. 

3. Carvajal, Nikki and Caroline Kelly. “Trump issues orders banning TikTok and WeChat from operating in 45 days if they are not sold by Chinese parent companies.” CNN, August 8, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html. 

4. International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 35 (1977).  

5. TikTok v. Trump, No. 2:20-cv-7672, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. 

6. U.S. Constitution Amend. V.  

7. Isaac, Mike and David McCabe. “TikTok Wins Reprieve from U.S. Ban.” The New York Times, September 27, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/technology/tiktok-ban-ruling-app.html/. 

8. Tik Tok v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-02658, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.

9. Allyn, Bobby. “Biden Drops Trump’s Ban on TikTok And WeChat –– But Will Continue The Scrutiny.” NPR, June 9, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004750274/biden-replaces-trump-bans-on-tiktok-wechat-with-order-to-scrutinize-apps. 

10. Joint Stipulation to Dismiss, Tik Tok v. Trump, No. 1:20-cv-02658, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.

11. No TikTok on Government Devices Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3553 (2022).

12. Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9901 (2024). 

13. TikTok v. Garland, 604 U.S. ___ (2025).

14. Brief for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression as Amicus Curiae, TikTok v. Garland, 604 U.S. ___ (2025).

15. TikTok v. Garland, 604 U.S. ___ (2025).

16. Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9901 (2024). 

17. Garrison, Tim. "Worcester v. Georgia." New Georgia Encyclopedia, Feb 20, 2018. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832/. 

18. Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. “Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’.” The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe. 

Bibliography:

Allyn, Bobby. “Biden Drops Trump’s Ban on TikTok And WeChat –– But Will Continue The Scrutiny.” NPR, June 9, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004750274/biden-replaces-trump-bans-on-tiktok-wechat-with-order-to-scrutinize-apps.

Arjun, Kharpal. “U.S. is 'looking at' banning TikTok and Chinese social media apps, Pompeo says.” CNBC, July 7, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/us-looking-at-banning-tiktok-and-chinese-social-media-apps-pompeo.html.

Carvajal, Nikki and Caroline Kelly. “Trump issues orders banning TikTok and WeChat from operating in 45 days if they are not sold by Chinese parent companies.” CNN, August 8, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/06/politics/trump-executive-order-tiktok/index.html.

Garrison, Tim. "Worcester v. Georgia." New Georgia Encyclopedia, Feb 20, 2018. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832/. 

Isaac, Mike and David McCabe. “TikTok Wins Reprieve from U.S. Ban.” The New York Times, September 27, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/technology/tiktok-ban-ruling-app.html/.

TikTok Newsroom Staff. “TikTok CEO’s Show Chew’s Opening Statement.” Tik Tok Newsroom, January 31, 2024. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/opening-statement-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing.

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. “Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’.” The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe.

Contractor or Employee? The Legal Identity of Uber Drivers

By: Sari Richmond

Edited by: anna dellit and Avigna RamaChandran

1. Introduction

Uber, the popular ride-hailing service that debuted in 2009, controlled over 75% of the U.S. ridesharing market as of May 2024.[1] Soon after its inception, Uber has faced a continuous legal battle as it continues to defend its classification of drivers as independent contractors. Since its business model provides drivers flexibility, primarily the ability to choose their own working hours, the company has claimed they should not be classified as full-time, or even part-time, employees. This classification has significant implications as it determines whether Uber is responsible for providing minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and other worker protections.

Moreover, distinguishing whether Uber is a technology company or a transportation provider lies at the crux of this issue. [2] If Uber is merely a platform connecting drivers and riders, it is not technically employing those drivers. However, courts and legislators have challenged this argument, citing Uber’s pricing algorithms, driver rating systems, and other forms of control that suggest an employer-employee relationship. This legal discourse has played out in California, the European Union, and beyond.[3] 

2. Uber’s Statements on Driver Classification 

Uber has released multiple statements over the past decade defending their assertion that drivers should be classified as independent contractors. This messaging has remained consistent, even as lawmakers and courts have scrutinized Uber's business practices. In 2019, the passage of California’s Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) introduced the “ABC test,” which is used to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor—if the hiring entity can establish items A, B, and C are true, then workers can be classified as independent contractors.[4] Put simply, criteria A states that workers must operate free from the hirer's control in both contract terms and actual work; criteria B states that the worker's tasks must be outside the hiring entity’s usual business activities; criteria C states that the worker must be independently engaged in the same trade or profession. Through the interpretation of AB5 in 2020 by the California Court of Appeals, Uber was prohibited from categorizing drivers as independent contractors.[5] 

In response, Uber—along with Lyft and other gig-economy companies—invested over $200 million into Proposition 22, a ballot measure that successfully exempted them from the law. Uber framed the campaign around driver flexibility, arguing that if forced to classify drivers as employees, it would have to impose rigid schedules and limit the number of people who could work on its platform.[6] The campaign was successful, and Proposition 22 passed in a popular vote.

Most recently, in response to the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2024 Final Rule regarding worker classification, Uber reiterated that it does not believe this rule will impact its operations or driver status.[7] Uber has emphasized that the rule does not contain an "ABC test" for classification and that federal officials have stated the regulation is unlikely to result in large-scale reclassification of gig workers. Additionally, Uber continues to push for a middle-ground approach in state-level legislation. The company points to laws like Proposition 22 in California and an agreement in New York that maintain drivers' independent status while offering certain benefits.[8]

3. Being an Employee vs. an Independent Contractor

The legal debate over what constitutes being an employee versus an independent contractor can appear mundane to those working traditional 9-5 jobs that offer guaranteed benefits, but the financial impact felt by individuals who classify as independent contractors is substantial. Employees have access to employer-provided 401(k) plans and other retirement benefits, while Uber drivers are not guaranteed these same benefits, nor are they guaranteed workers’ compensation benefits if injured on the job.[9] Uber has argued that its independent contractor model allows drivers to maximize earnings by working only when it is most profitable and boosts driver retention retains drivers due to schedule flexibility. However, labor advocates contend that the lack of basic protections leaves drivers vulnerable, especially during economic downturns or personal emergencies. [10]

4. Conclusion

The debate over Uber’s driver classification remains unresolved. Uber has repeatedly defended its independent contractor model, arguing that it benefits drivers by offering flexibility; however, courts and labor activists have challenged this claim, pointing out the company’s undue level of control over drivers and the economic disadvantages of independent contractor status. Despite legal victories for Uber like Proposition 22, Uber’s employment model remains under threat. Lawsuits, legislative efforts, and even shifts in public perception may force Uber to adjust its approach. As the gig economy continues to evolve, the question remains if Uber’s independent contractor model will be able to continue.

Notes:

1. Chen, Audrea. 2024. “Columbia Undergraduate Law Review.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review. 

2. Frazier, Ryan. n.d. “Sharing Is Caring: Are Uber, Lyft Drivers Independent Contractors?” 

3. TRÂN NGUYỄN. 2024. “Uber and Lyft Drivers Remain Independent Contractors in California Supreme Court Ruling.” AP News. 

4. Primm, Adam, and Sean McKinley. 2024. “California Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Uber, Lyft Drivers May Remain Classified as Independent Contractors.” Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP - California Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Uber, Lyft Drivers May Remain Classified as Independent Contractors. Benesch Law. 

5. Wooters, CR. 2024. “Uber Newsroom.” Www.uber.com. 

6. Marzzacco, Christopher J. 2024. “Marzzacco Niven & Associates.” Marzzacco Niven & Associates, May.

Bibliography:

Chen, Audrea. 2024. “Columbia Undergraduate Law Review.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review. September 5, 2024. https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/employee-or-independent-contractor-a-legal-analysis-of-ubers-worker-misclassification.

Frazier, Ryan. n.d. “Sharing Is Caring: Are Uber, Lyft Drivers Independent Contractors?” Www.kirtonmcconkie.com. https://www.kirtonmcconkie.com/publication-367.

Marzzacco, Christopher J. 2024. “Marzzacco Niven & Associates.” Marzzacco Niven & Associates, May. https://doi.org/10851853084/INthCJ2jwKIDEJzGyLYo.

Primm, Adam, and Sean McKinley. 2024. “California Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Uber, Lyft Drivers May Remain Classified as Independent Contractors.” Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP - California Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Uber, Lyft Drivers May Remain Classified as Independent Contractors. Benesch Law. 2024. https://www.beneschlaw.com/resources/california-supreme-court-unanimously-rules-that-uber-lyft-drivers-may-remain-classified-as-independent-contractors.html

TRÂN NGUYỄN. 2024. “Uber and Lyft Drivers Remain Independent Contractors in California Supreme Court Ruling.” AP News. AP News. July 26, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/california-drivers-uber-lyft-independent-contractors-0aaa5cd01c28d8a575cf1bc3aa3f44a4.

Wooters, CR. 2024. “Uber Newsroom.” Www.uber.com. January 9, 2024. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/dol-final-rule-2024/.

Mass Deportation & The Labor Market: Trump's Erroneous Promise

By: Morgan Dreher

edited by: olivia paik and Sophia Khobdeh

President Donald Trump plans to “‘carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’” [1] What does this mean for Americans? With a plethora of immigration and trade policies, Trump promised to improve the economy for American citizens. Since taking office, he has already issued a series of executive orders and arrested thousands of unauthorized immigrants. [2] But, this objective may be based on a gross misrepresentation of how undocumented immigration affects our labor market. 

A few assumptions underlie the philosophy that mass deportation will improve the labor market and create jobs for American citizens. First, it presupposes that immigrant and citizen labor are direct substitutes – meaning job openings from deportations will readily be filled by unemployed American citizens at no extra cost to employers. Additionally, the promise of increased job availability assumes that our economy has a fixed number of jobs, and all jobs vacated by deported immigrants will be preserved for American-born workers. However, both of these premises are drastic oversimplifications of our country’s economy. 

Beginning with the question of substitutability, trends show that undocumented immigrants tend to work different jobs than American citizens. Unauthorized immigrants are more likely to accept lower paying and more dangerous jobs, which many Americans are unwilling to perform. [3] In fact, H-2A jobs, which provide temporary visas to agricultural workers, rarely see any applications from U.S. born workers. From 2014 to 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor found that “87 percent of H-2A employers requesting U.S. workers received none.” [4] In addition to agriculture, undocumented immigrants are essential to many other key industries. A report from the Carsey School of Public Policy found that unauthorized immigrants make up “22 percent of all farmworkers, 15 percent of construction workers, and 8 percent of manufacturing workers.” [5] Many of these fields already face a labor shortage, and a further decrease in supply from deportations will raise prices for consumers. [6] Therefore, deportations will fuel inflation, undermining one of Trump’s central campaign promises to lower prices. Another issue with the substitutability assumption is that undocumented immigrants have lower reservation wages than American citizens. [7] Employers cannot simply replace undocumented immigrants’ labor with citizen labor, as attracting citizen workers requires higher pay. This increases costs for firms, driving consumer prices up further. But, firms will not always opt to fill the vacancies created by deportation. 

This leads to the second presupposition: a fixed number of jobs. While deportations will certainly decrease competition in the labor market, evidence does not support a net job creation effect. Since the U.S. is already facing labor shortages in the low-wage sector, deportation will not effectively create job openings in the positions Americans are vying for. As hiring becomes more expensive, firms will opt to hire fewer workers to mitigate their costs. They will likely invest in more capital or technology, which serves as a closer substitute for immigrant labor than American born workers. [8] The remaining question is whether the effects of decreased competition will outweigh the effects of job elimination. According to a study by scholar Christoph Albert, undocumented immigrants have a 7% higher job finding rate but earn 8% less, meaning their net effect is job creation. [9] Therefore, the absence of immigrants due to deportation will decrease job availability more than it will benefit domestic workers through reduced competition. 

Deportation will also spur job loss across income levels, as immigrants currently prop up local markets with consumption and business ventures. According to the American Immigration Council, one million undocumented immigrants are entrepreneurs. [10] Plus, immigrant labor is complementary to higher-paying jobs, meaning immigrants improve productivity and thus employment for American workers in intermediate and high level positions. [11] These jobs rely on the goods and services provided by low-skilled labor, often performed by unauthorized immigrants, and will see a decrease in surplus and employment in response to mass deportation. Robert Lynch and Michael Ettlinger from the Carsey School predict that “employment losses for future mass deportation have been estimated to be as high as 3.6 percent.” [12] On the whole, this displays the possible economic downturn linked to Trump’s promised deportations. 

Economists assess the plausibility of these concerns by analyzing other major deportations in America’s history. Many studies examine the deportations under the Secure Communities program from 2008 to 2014, which “increased information sharing between local law enforcement agencies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” [13] One report found that “when 500,000 undocumented immigrant workers were forced out of the country, 44,000 fewer jobs were held by U.S.-born workers.” [14] Similarly, the end of the Bracero Program in the 1960s–which temporarily admitted Mexicans to America for agricultural work–did not increase employment or wages for American workers. [15] Thus, history proves that mass deportations will not have the positive labor market effects that Trump’s administration promises.

In addition to labor market consequences, mass deportations create other costs for American citizens. A study by the American Immigration Council estimates that between arrests, detainments, legal proceedings, and removals, a one-time mass deportation targeting approximately 13 million undocumented immigrants will cost at least $315 billion. [16] The same research reports that a longer-term operation could cost around “$967.9 billion over the course of more than a decade.” [17] These explicit costs will be accompanied by a series of implicit ones, such as a potential decrease in GDP by 4.2-6.8%. [18] In aggregate, undocumented immigrants also pay more taxes than the welfare they receive, with more than a third of their payroll taxes going towards programs they cannot benefit from. [19] The economic costs of deportation include direct expenditures on deportation processes and foregone GDP and tax revenue – a bill which American taxpayers will foot.

Overall, Trump’s promises of job creation are flawed due to a reliance on two oversimplifications of the economy. Analysis of economic theory and deportations throughout history suggest that mass deportation will have the reverse effect on the economy by decreasing employment and raising prices. Plus, the expenses incurred will inevitably increase taxes, further hurting American consumers. So, as the executive orders roll in and promises of job creation continue, remember that mass deportation leaves no American unscathed.

Notes:

1. Ali Blanco, “The US Has Deported Immigrants En Masse Before. Here’s What Happened,” Politico, 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/29/mass-deportation-immigration-history-00195729.

2. Mica Rosenberg and Perla Trevizo, “Four Years in a Day,” ProPublica, 2025. https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-immigration-executive-orders

3. Chloe East, “The labor market impact of deportations,” Brookings Institution, 2024. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-labor-market-impact-of-deportations/

4. David J. Bier, “H‑2A Visas for Agriculture: The Complex Process for Farmers to Hire Agricultural Guest Workers,” Cato Institute, 2020. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/h-2a-visas-agriculture-complex-process-farmers-hire

5. Robert Lynch and Michael Ettlinger, “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation,” University of New Hampshire, 2024. https://carsey.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2025-01/literature-review-economic-impact-mass-deportation.pdf

6. Martin Heinrich, “Mass Deportations Would Deliver a Catastrophic Blow to the U.S. Economy,” Joint Economic Committee, 2024. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/12/mass-deportations-would-deliver-a-catastrophic-blow-to-the-u-s-economy#:~:text=Evidence%20also%20shows%20that%20deportations,least%20educated%20and%20most%20vulnerable

7. Christoph Albert, “The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 13 (1): 35-78, 2021. 10.1257/mac.20190042

8. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy,” American Immigration Council, 2024.  https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation

9. Albert, “The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition.”

10. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

11. Lynch and Ettlinger, “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation.”

12. Lynch and Ettlinger, “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation.”

13. East, “The labor market impact of deportations.”

14. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

15. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

16. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

17. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

18. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

19. Akash Pillai, Drishti Pillai, and Samantha Artiga, “Potential Impacts of Mass Detention and Deportation Efforts on the Health and Well-Being of Immigrant Families,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 2025.  https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/potential-impacts-of-mass-detention-and-deportation-efforts-on-the-health-and-well-being-of-immigrant-families/

Bibliography:

Albert, Christoph. 2021. “The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 13 (1): 35-78. 10.1257/mac.20190042.

Bier, David J. 2020. “H‑2A Visas for Agriculture: The Complex Process for Farmers to Hire Agricultural Guest Workers.” Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/h-2a-visas-agriculture-complex-process-farmers-hire.

Blanco, Ali. 2024. “The US Has Deported Immigrants En Masse Before. Here’s What Happened.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/29/mass-deportation-immigration-history-00195729.

East, Chloe. 2024. “The labor market impact of deportations.” Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-labor-market-impact-of-deportations/.

Heinrich, Martin. 2024. “Mass Deportations Would Deliver a Catastrophic Blow to the U.S. Economy.” Joint Economic Committee. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/12/mass-deportations-would-deliver-a-catastrophic-blow-to-the-u-s-economy#:~:text=Evidence%20also%20shows%20that%20deportations,least%20educated%20and%20most%20vulnerable.

Lynch, Robert, and Michael Ettlinger. 2024. “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation.” University of New Hampshire. https://carsey.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2025-01/literature-review-economic-impact-mass-deportation.pdf.

“Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.” 2024. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation.

Pillai, Akash, Drishti Pillai, and Samantha Artiga. 2025. “Potential Impacts of Mass Detention and Deportation Efforts on the Health and Well-Being of Immigrant Families.” Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/potential-impacts-of-mass-detention-and-deportation-efforts-on-the-health-and-well-being-of-immigrant-families/.

Rosenberg, Mica, and Perla Trevizo. 2025. “Four Years in a Day.” ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-immigration-executive-orders.

The Culture War President: Trump’s Crusade Against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

By: Asha Navaratnasingam

Edited by: regan cornelius and asher moss

At the onset of U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term, Politico dubbed him “The Culture War President” in response to his ongoing hostility toward politically correct elites.[1] In the context of Trump’s renewed fight against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, his past statements feel especially relevant. Near the end of his first term, he issued an executive order banning diversity training in federal organizations.[2] A federal judge blocked the mandate due to concerns over First Amendment violations. Then, when Joe Biden took office as the 46th President, he signed an executive order promoting DEI programs.[3] Rather than acting as a deterrent, however, the Biden administration seems to have furthered Trump’s vendetta against equity initiatives. During his 2024, and third consecutive, run for the presidency, he highlighted his past and intended continuation of the war against DEI as a defining aspect of his platform; he declared in a March 2023 speech that “every institution in America is under attack from this Marxist concept of ‘equity.’” Trump further vowed to reinstate his 2020 executive order when he retook office.[4] Within his election platform, Trump asserted that the U.S. Congress should compensate those “unjustly discriminated against by these destructive policies.”[5]

Immediately upon taking office, Trump followed through on his campaign promises and signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” Labeling DEI as “illegal and immoral” and condemning its “infiltration” into the federal government, the order mandated the discontinuation of all federal DEI programs.[6] It gave agency, department, and commission heads sixty days to terminate all DEI offices, positions, action plans, equity-related grants or contracts, and performance requirements.[6] In his second day in office, the President signed another executive order on DEI, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which cancelled previous administrations’ executive actions relating to DEI.[7] This includes an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order that had played a critical role in federal job equality since 1965.[8] President Trump has also tasked federal agencies with investigating the private sector’s diversity programs for violations of federal law.[9] Purging DEI initiatives from all aspects of the American corporate structure, Trump has promised to “create a society that is blind to color and based on merit.”[10] He has promoted a new method endorsed by Elon Musk.[11] This approach, centered around Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI), emphasizes choosing employees based on qualification without consideration of demographics.[12] Many leading companies have already made the switch from DEI-based hiring to MEI, including McDonald’s, Walmart, Amazon, and Meta.[13]

In a matter of days, Trump’s executive orders have also revamped the federal bureaucracy. The Department of Veterans Affairs has placed nearly 60 employees responsible for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on paid leave, and the department is in the process of canceling several DEI programs, contracts, and materials.[14] Morgan Ackley, Director of Media Affairs for the Veterans Affairs Department, issued a statement affirming that the Department was “proud to have abandoned the divisive DEI policies of the past.”[15] The Department of Education has also put a number of DEI-focused employees on paid leave and has removed hundreds of materials with mentions of DEI from its outward-facing communication channels.[16] Moving forward, the Education Department pledges to continue to review all programs to remove any initiatives that contain a “divisive DEI agenda.”[17]

The Trump Administration’s gutting of DEI policies have far-reaching consequences for federal as well as private employees. Many employees that federal agencies have placed on leave face potential job loss solely on the basis of involvement in past DEI programs.[18] Furthermore, the executive orders have paused voluntary, employee-led affinity resource groups, and workers say the ramifications of this loss have been devastating.[19] Previous attendees of these resource groups say their community aspect helped them feel like they belonged in the workplace;one worker relayed he had “never been more scared at work” after the groups’ removal.[20] In addition, many federal employees from marginalized communities believe the language used in the executive orders is targeting their identities and feel both psychologically and physically unsafe in their work spaces.[21] Private companies’ diversity programs, many of which are under investigation by federal agencies, are also threatened.[22] Reaching all the way back to his first term, Trump has prioritized dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. He has certainly lived up to the label as the “Culture War President.” Moving forward, the President will likely focus on further purging DEI from the public sector and implementing Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence hiring programs in its place. There is no doubt that the impacts of these actions will resonate across the bureaucracy and the greater American workforce.

Notes:

1. Scher, Bill. “The Culture War President - POLITICO Magazine.” Politico, September 27, 2017. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/27/trump-culture-war-215653/.

2. Trump, Donald. “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” National Archives and Records Administration, September 22, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/.

3. Aratani, Lauren. “How Could Trump’s Second Term Affect Dei Initiatives in the US?” The Guardian, January 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/11/trump-dei-diversity.

4. Trump, Donald. “Agenda47: Reversing Biden’s Eo Embedding Marxism in the Federal Government: Donald J. Trump for President 2024.” Agenda47 | Donald J. Trump, March 2, 2023. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-reversing-bidens-eo-embedding-marxism-in-the-federal-government.

5. Evans, Misty. “Presidential Possibilities.” Insight Into Diversity, November 6, 2024.https://www.insightintodiversity.com/presidential-possibilities/.

6. Trump, Donald. “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government Dei Programs and Preferencing.” The White House, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/.

7. Trump, Donald. “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The White House, January 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/.

8. Moore, ReNika. “Trump’s Executive Orders Rolling Back Dei and Accessibility Efforts, Explained: ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, January 24, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/trumps-executive-orders-rolling-back-dei-and-accessibility-efforts-explained.

9. Montlake, Simon. “Trump Is Attacking Dei in Government and beyond. What Will Be the Impact?” The Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 2025. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0204/trump-dei-discrimination-merit-faa.

10. Kelly, Jack. “President Trump Shifts to ‘Merit, Excellence and Intelligence’ in the Workplace and Away from DEI.” Forbes, February 1, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2025/02/01/president-trump-shifts-to-merit-excellence-and-intelligence-in-the-workplace-and-away-from-dei/.

11. Borchers, Callum. “Merit, Excellence and Intelligence: An Anti-DEI Approach ...” The Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/dei-catches-on-merit-intelligence-excellence-mei-27839a3c.

12. Kelly. “President Trump…Away from DEI.”
13. Ibid.

14. “Va Ends Dei, Stops Millions in Spending on DEI.” V A News, January 27, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-ends-dei-stops-millions-in-spending-on-dei/.

15. Ibid.

16. “U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate Dei.” U.S. Department of Education, January 23, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-takes-action-eliminate-dei.

17. Ibid.

18. Stein, Chris. “‘Very Retaliatory’: The Federal Workers Caught up in Trump’s Dei Purge.” The Guardian, February 2, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/trump-dei-purge-federal-government.

19. Ibid.

20. Yam, Kimmy. “Trump’s Anti-DEI Executive Orders Target Employee Resource Groups, Federal Workers Say.” NBCNews.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/trump-anti-dei-orders-target-federal-employee-groups-rcna189212.

21. Khetarpal, Monica H., and Michael D. Thomas. “The Impact of President Trump’s EO’son Dei: Essential Strategies for Employers.” Jackson Lewis, February 6, 2025. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/impact-president-trumps-eos-dei-essential-strategIes-employers.

22. Ibid, 9.

Bibliography:

Aratani, Lauren. “How Could Trump’s Second Term Affect Dei Initiatives in the US?” The Guardian, January 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/11/trump-dei-diversity.

Borchers, Callum. “Merit, Excellence and Intelligence: An Anti-DEI Approach ...” The Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/dei-catches-on-merit-intelligence-excellence-mei-27839a3c.

Evans, Misty. “Presidential Possibilities.” Insight Into Diversity, November 6, 2024. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/presidential-possibilities/.

Kelly, Jack. “President Trump Shifts to ‘merit, Excellence and Intelligence’ in the Workplace and Away from Dei.” Forbes, February 1, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2025/02/01/president-trump-shifts-to-merit-excellence-and-intelligence-in-the-workplace-and-away-from-dei/.

Khetarpal, Monica H., and Michael D. Thomas. “The Impact of President Trump’s EO’s on Dei: Essential Strategies for Employers.” Jackson Lewis, February 6, 2025. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/impact-president-trumps-eos-dei-essential-strategies-employers.

Montlake, Simon. “Trump Is Attacking Dei in Government and beyond. What Will Be the Impact?” The Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 2025. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0204/trump-dei-discrimination-merit-faa.

Moore, ReNika. “Trump’s Executive Orders Rolling Back Dei and Accessibility Efforts, Explained: ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, January 24, 2025.Navaratnasingam 6 https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/trumps-executive-orders-rolling-back-dei-and-accessibility-efforts-explained.

Trump, Donald. “Agenda47: Reversing Biden’s Eo Embedding Marxism in the Federal Government: Donald J. Trump for President 2024.” Agenda47 | Donald J. Trump, March 2, 2023. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-reversing-bidens-eo-embedding-marxism-in-the-federal-government.

Trump, Donald. “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The White House, January 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/.

Trump, Donald. “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government Dei Programs and Preferencing.” The White House, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/.

Trump, Donald. “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” National Archives and Records Administration, September 22, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/.

Scher, Bill. “The Culture War President - POLITICO Magazine.” Politico, September 27, 2017. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/27/trump-culture-war-215653/.Navaratnasingam 7

Stein, Chris. “‘Very Retaliatory’: The Federal Workers Caught up in Trump’s Dei Purge.” The Guardian, February 2, 2025 .https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/trump-dei-purge-federal-government.

“U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate Dei.” U.S. Department of Education, January 23, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-takes-action-eliminate-dei.

“Va Ends Dei, Stops Millions in Spending on DEI.” V A News, January 27, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-ends-dei-stops-millions-in-spending-on-dei/.

Yam, Kimmy. “Trump’s Anti-DEI Executive Orders Target Employee Resource Groups, Federal Workers Say.” NBCNews.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/trump-anti-dei-orders-target-federal-employee-groups-rcna189212.