Name: Has Trump won his war on Woke? | 100 Days of Trump | BBC News
Uploaded: 2025-05-03T00:04:04.000Z
Duration: 12 min 2 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Hello, this is a special episode of America's, part of our series taking a look at Donald Trump's first 100 days in office since he returned to the White House as President of the United States of America.

We've ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and indeed the private sector and our military.

I'm Matt Shorley in the AmeriCast studio in London.

I'm Marianna Spring, also in what we call, Matt, the worldwide headquarters of AmeriCast.

I don't feel like I'm qualified for that.

And I'm Justin Webb, sitting next to Marianna and not taking sides on that issue.

OK, so let's start with a real example of DEI.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, said together in an inclusive manner.

So, Walmart, the biggest private employer in the world.

They've invested millions in DEI programmes.

They did it after the Black Lives Matter protest back in 2020.

They're also the biggest private employer of black Americans.

And like companies across America, they have been cutting a lot of their diversity programmes.

Let's listen to Marc Morial talking to CBS Morning.

So, he's from the civil rights organisation, the National Urban League, which has been working with Walmart for two decades, including on a programme to get more black women-owned suppliers into Walmart stores.

As a 20-year partner of Walmart, none of us got a heads-up that they were even re-evaluating or reconsidering their corporate diversity or equal opportunity initiatives.

This company was under recriminations, lawsuits, complaints 20 years ago.

The CEO at that time, Tony and Adriana, Lee Scott, led a remarkable transformation of this company over the last 20 years.

And they went from worst to first class when it comes to diversity.

The idea that they would throw all of that away without any careful consultation with their partners, we need American business leaders to stand up for American values.

And one value of this nation is equal opportunity.

That's all diversity, equity and inclusion is about.

It's about creating a level playing field for all.

You've got Amazon, Disney, Meta, Google, Target, McDonald's, all rolling back their diversity programme.

Because they say it's not about creating a level playing field.

It's the opposite of creating a level playing field.

This is the point the Trump administration makes and the point that actually hits home with a lot of Americans.

I think, frankly, one of the reasons why he was elected is that people are uncomfortable with programmes that seem to suggest some races, some individuals, because we are talking, of course, about individuals in the most individualistic country on earth, some individuals should be promoted because of the group they are in rather than because of their own talents and character.

And that is something that the Trump administration has played on as an idea and it is something that has hit home.

The thing is, though, and it's probably worth thinking about why this happened when it happened, and that was broadly associated with these Black Lives Matter protests we've mentioned that happened in 2020.

They were after George Floyd, a black man, was killed by a police officer and they sparked a huge amount of protest and protests that ended up then sparking a wider conversation about racism in the United States.

And it was in reaction to that that some of these companies said, right, OK, how are we going to prove our commitment, I guess, to not being racist to our employees and to ensuring that everybody gets opportunities?

Because there's obviously a difference between the state and their responsibility to treat everyone equally, you know, American citizens all being viewed the same and treated with access to the same services and all that, and companies who ultimately answer to their shareholders.

There's clearly a difference between a company recognising, actually, we might be missing out on some talent here if we just keep hiring white people, then we maybe should look at our hiring policies.

But then also there's the suspicion in response to some of the Black Lives Matters that it's a PR thing, you know, every company having to be seen to be doing something.

We see it in the UK as well, where banks suddenly change all their logos to the Pride logo.

Does that make any difference to the way...?

And private companies, you're exactly right, aren't you?

Private companies do what seems to be the right thing to do by way of their shareholders, in other words, to make money.

That's kind of what's happening here, you could argue, which is that, like, all of this stuff is just reactive and in response to whatever the political kind of mood of the moment is.

But what was happening around the Black Lives Matter protest was people almost, like, actively calling out companies quite specifically and saying, hold on a second, you guys are not doing anything.

And I think it was, like, the fear around that contributed to some of the decision-making, which wasn't necessarily that thought through, but maybe had that kind of...

So what's going on now, then, with companies rowing back on this?

Is it just to curry favour with Donald Trump?

Is it because they've realised that maybe the American mood isn't where it was?

Is it because they just think, why are we spending all this money on these vanity projects?

Is it because they think, well, actually, we've done quite a lot of work on this, we've changed our work...

What's driving this sudden rush to change?

I think it's all of those things, actually.

And there is an element of needing to curry favour with the Trump administration, because if you are...

I mean, you think of the big companies that may have dealings with or may need things from the administration or may fear the administration, given what Donald Trump is capable of doing and the power that he seems to have accreted to himself, then I think it is reasonable.

I was talking to someone the other day whose company is advising people who deal with the White House to get rid of their pronouns in their emails.

So some of the younger staff have their pronouns in their emails, and they said, don't do it, because if you deal with the White House and you do that, you draw attention to us as a kind of culturally separate, different institution with different values and a different way of looking things.

So that, I think, is interesting, but much more widely.

There is a mood anyway, never mind people who want to deal with the White House, there is a mood anyway in the United States that some of the things that people have been doing and saying, they don't need to do and say anymore.

I think something that's quite interesting is, if the argument is, OK, well, Donald Trump just says, everyone kind of make up your own minds, we're not going to tell you what to think or what to do or what have you, when there's stuff like, for example, all of the action that's been taken around the Department of Education, which is to be no more, and all of the conversation around withdrawing federal funding from schools and higher education institutions because they are not agreeing to a particular set of values you want them to.

Lots of the universities, like Harvard, have taken issue with, hang on a second, you've basically told us that people who are hostile to American values need to be dealt with, and we're not very comfortable with that.

In some ways, that also feels a bit like telling people how to think.

It's a bit policing people's language of thought.

Yeah, and so actually, is there a risk here as well of the kind of overcorrection thing, which is like something that was overcorrected then overcorrects the other way?

The idea of the Trump administration being desperately keen on freedom of speech, when you think of the way that he potentially goes after people from his former administration who are facing real legal difficulties as a result simply of things that they said.

I suppose it goes to the what is Ameritocracy, like the great American dream that everyone can get on in America.

Yeah, mess with that dream and you get into trouble.  Even if it's a dream, a myth, whatever, but mess with it and you'd better have a good reason to do it.

That's what the Democrats have discovered.

You don't want to be overlooked because you're black, but equally, you don't want to be overpromoted, made a special case of.

You don't want yourself to be undermined with people saying, oh, the only reason you got this job is because of who you are, when it's like, no, actually, I'm really good at my job.

And then if it's the overreach thing, you get into a situation where you have white people, you don't want white people to feel like they've been overlooked.

The kind of American thinking about who an American is is that all that matters is their character, not the colour of their skin or their racial background.

On the dream point, I think the complexity of the dream is that the starting point for everyone is not the same.

America has a history of deep-rooted racism.

America has a history of deep-rooted racism, which in its pretty recent history, in terms of the treatment of black people, in terms of slavery, in terms of all of those things, and so you can see...

If you actually kind of track the historical flashpoints, you can kind of see why we've got here now.

Looking ahead, we've had 100 days of Donald Trump declaring war on DEI.

Where is the pendulum going to end up settling, if it's swung one way, does it come back?

It stays, I reckon, on the Trump side, on the Republican side, at least in the foreseeable future.