Narcissistic. Childish. Brilliant. Unhinged. Con man.
Whatever your view of the 47th president of the United States, no one can deny that Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office has been a whirlwind of action. In his first 100 days back in office, Trump signed 141 executive orders. From the removal of a ban on plastic straws, to renaming the Gulf of Mexico, toing and froing on import and trade tariffs, establishing centres to support mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, dismantling the Department for Education, issuing pardons to Jan 6 defendants, and exiting both the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the World Health Organisation, Trump has been very, very busy.
His moves are too numerous to list and too erratic to predict (by day 150, he bombed Iran!), but one thing is certain: Trump’s ‘anti-DEI’ stance is here to stay. His ban on diversity flags, diversity training, diversity targets and even diversity-related words has been a core part of fulfilling a promise to voters. He is unashamed and bold, and there can be no doubt that his actions are mainstreaming protectionism, xenophobia, misogyny, racism and anti-LBGTQ+ views.
Not surprisingly, millions of Americans are taking a stand against the President. On 14 June 2025, the largest ever single-day of protests in US history, an estimated 4–6 million people (or between 1 and 2 per cent of US citizens) turned out for the ‘No Kings’ protests across America.
Trump is easy to demonise and to despise. But as we protest (and we should), we also need to listen and adjust. If we don’t, we run the risk of winning the moral battle in front of us but ultimately losing the bigger war for the future of our society.
Like many politicians, Trump plays on divides that already exist. Both in his path back to the White House, and in months since his return, Trump has capitalised on the resentment and frustration from those who feel left behind by inclusion, diversity and equity initiatives. ‘Anti-woke’ is part of his brand, and he is a master at using widespread beliefs and emotions to achieve his aims. If we want to counter Trump’s power and influence, we need to understand why so many who voted for him find inclusion and diversity in its current form so unpalatable.
According to new insight from Pew Research, Trump won
- voters who attend religious services monthly or more by 30 points (64 per cent);
- voters living in rural areas by 40 points (69 per cent);
- non-college-educated voters by 14 points (56 per cent);
- men by 12 points (55 per cent).
There will be some bigots and bullies among those who voted for Trump. But automatically jumping to such labels is not only ignorant and inaccurate, it’s unlikely to help solve the complex social problems we face.
If we want to transform society, we need to understand why swathes of people feel so left behind that they were willing to vote for Trump at almost all costs. Social change can be deeply uncomfortable, and we should expect a certain level of pushback. But when half of America votes against inclusion and diversity, we need to change our approach, starting with these four big shifts:
Widening who we invite in, and who we include. For decades, we have almost solely focused on minority groups. We created closed rooms, where diverse individuals shared their lived experience in safe spaces. But when you overfocus on minorities, it becomes problematic. Firstly, individuals in the minority cannot fix the problems they face. If they could, they would have done so long ago. Secondly, when we fail to bring the majority on the journey, it fuels division. The sense of exclusion, rejection, and, to some extent, accusation that arises paves the way for pushback. Inclusion programmes need to encompass men as allies, but also to include men as a group of individuals with unique needs. Socioeconomic inclusion, and addressing both the wealth gap and the geographic nature of life opportunity, can no longer be ignored by employers. Religion needs to be a conscious consideration.
Addressing the zero-sum game mentality. Pushback often comes from a scarcity mindset – a belief that there are limited opportunities and resources, and that for one group to rise, another has to fall. This zero-sum mentality drives a resistance to change as individuals and groups focus on competing for opportunities and life options they see as ‘exclusive’. Not only do we need to dismiss the concept of scarcity, but we also need to actively create positive alternatives to the ‘us vs. them’ narrative and avoid the dehumanising effect, which makes it much easier to hate ‘them over there’.
Balancing pragmatism and ideology. If we want to avoid that knee-jerk negativity, we need to be more strategic in how we approach change, including how we talk about and brand our change efforts. Diversity doesn’t sell. And when we use words like ‘patriarchy’, ‘activist’ and ‘social justice’, it really doesn’t sell. Unfortunately, language can be a turn-off. It shouldn’t be, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Being pragmatic in our approach will help us avoid automatic rejection of ideas and concepts that are key to acceptance.
Avoiding short-term fixes and overly simplified approaches. The exploration of inclusion and diversity requires lifting up the rocks of humanity and looking at what lies beneath. That deep examination is often at odds with the simple, binary or easy-to-implement solutions that organisations often seek. The reality is that this stuff is both complex and emotive. And unfortunately, the more emotionally charged a situation, the more rigid we become, doubling down in our views and our beliefs, and shutting down important debate. That rigidity means we fight to win the argument of the day, often not having the wherewithal to see the bigger chess moves on the board of life.
Adjusting our approach to inclusion and diversity doesn’t mean lowering our ambition.
We should be unapologetic in seeking a fairer, more equitable world. There is an assumption that to include men in diversity efforts, we have to forgo our aspirations for women. That assumption is driven by the idea that it’s women OR men, individuals of colour OR white people, trans women OR cis women. The truth is that, more often than not, there is room for both.
Similarly, it can feel disingenuous to adjust our language or feel like giving in when we alter our approach to inclusion and diversity initiatives. But it’s not disingenuous to play the long game. If we want to win this so-called ‘culture war’, we need to plan for the messy, find time and space for the nuanced, and bring in more of those who sit on the outside to be part of the solution.
Suzy Levy is a specialist in social change and author of Mind the Inclusion Gap: How Allies Can Bridge the Divide Between Talking Diversity and Taking Action.
Mind the Inclusion Gap by Suzy Levy is available on Policy Press for £12.99 here.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Ben Wicks via Unsplash