By Tony Case  •  September 12, 2025  •

Ivy Liu

In it all, HR executives are grappling with how to preserve the essence of DEI work under changed circumstances.

A conversation among leading HR executives at a recent dinner gathering in New York — hosted by WorkLife and sponsored by the employee coaching and development platform BetterUp — revealed both the challenges and creative adaptations organizations are making in response to new regulatory environments. At the event, Chatham House Rules applied, meaning that participants agreed to speak on the condition they would not be identified by name or company. This is the final in a four-part editorial series exploring topics covered at the event.

The change has been swift and dramatic. “The moment the executive order was signed, we had someone who had to physically go in and scrub one of our government accounts,” shared one executive, describing the immediate operational impact.

The personal toll on employees has been significant. In one case, an African American employee was tasked with removing diversity-focused content from a military recruitment account — work that directly contradicted their personal values and the very communities they were meant to serve.

Many organizations have responded by changing titles and terminology while attempting to preserve the underlying work. “Anyone in the DEI space, inclusion space, belonging space — you will all be called ‘inclusion and impact,’” described one executive whose parent company mandated universal title changes across all business divisions.

The reaction from practitioners has been mixed. “You’re diminishing the work that has happened here over time because you just decided, with no research, no focus groups — tomorrow your name is inclusion and impact.”

Despite the challenges, many organizations are finding ways to continue their inclusion work under different frameworks. “We changed the nomenclature, but we’re still doing inclusion and culture. We embed the diversity piece into it — we just don’t call it out or flag it,” explained one executive. That approach allows organizations to maintain programming while adapting to new constraints: “We haven’t pulled anything back, but we also haven’t promoted a lot. What we have is what we have.”

Organizations with government contracts face particular scrutiny. “We are a government contractor, so it’s a different level of hyper-sensitivity around what we can say, what our website says, some of the things that we do internally — everything is under scrutiny,” noted one executive. That has led to visible changes: “We took content off our website because we are a government contractor, but the good news is that since the start of the year, since inauguration, some of it has eased up.”

The changes have affected employee engagement in complex ways. Many organizations report decreased participation in inclusion-focused activities. “Now it’s like, ‘we’re too busy now,’ but on the other side, we’ve seen our employee resource groups lose momentum. They don’t want to do the things anymore because we can’t say it, we can’t be proud about it, we can’t shout it out.”

The impact is particularly pronounced among younger employees who entered the workforce when DEI wasn’t yet a dirty word. “When I started, I was the first person doing DEI at my agency 20 years ago. But there was a moment when it became like a norm — DEI is at work, it’s what we do. And then when you say to them we have to shift it, to them it was like a full-on attack.”

Several executives noted that even well-intentioned leaders are reverting to less inclusive practices. “While the intention is there for us to do the same work, we still need to keep a watchful and intentional eye on our leadership, because some people, whether unintentional or intentional, will slip back into old habits.”

Despite the challenges, many executives emphasized that the underlying business case for inclusion work remains strong. “Eighty percent of employees said they want to work for companies that prioritize inclusion, and 64% said they’re willing to leave if they don’t feel like they belong,” said one participant. That creates a tension with current constraints: “Where are they going to go? The data shows 80% want inclusive workplaces, but the economy is causing people to stay even though they don’t want to.”

Notably, several leaders expressed determination to continue inclusion work regardless of external pressures. “DEI is real. The current trend is wrong, and it’s on all of us as leaders to fight back,” stated one executive.

Their approach involves focusing on actionable areas: “The way you fight back is who you hire, who you mentor, who you ensure has a fair and level playing field, who you give insights and feedback and the cheat codes to.”

Organizations are having to adapt to a landscape where DEI work still continues but often without the visibility it once had. The challenge is maintaining momentum and effectiveness while navigating new constraints.

One executive summarized the current state of things: “The complexity is around operating in the U.S. right now and the laws that govern us, and being able to stay compliant and not catch heat. But we still stand on our values and beliefs — we just have to adhere to the regulations we must follow as global entities.”

The discussion illustrated that while the landscape for DEI work has undeniably changed, organizations committed to inclusive workplaces are finding ways to adapt and continue their efforts — even if they must do so more quietly and strategically than before.