Leading Brands Defy Trump Push to Return US to 1964
By Tom Kagy | 19 Dec, 2025

Brands like Apple, Costco. JP Morgan and P&G are standing on principle and long-term good business sense rather than caving to a passing demagogue.

Big-picture business leaders know that the United States is far bigger than today's White House occupant.  While timid CEOs scramble to rewire their business cultures to conform to Trump's vision of an all-White America, real leaders understand that Trump and his retrograde mentality will soon fall to the realities of an inherently forward-looking, multicultural society.

Trump's Parallel Universe 

In the parallel universe inhabited by Donald Trump and a broader conservative movement aligned with him DEI is framed as an existential threat to merit, national identity, and even democracy itself.  Their goal isn't reform or balance, but eradication of the very notion of any ethnicity not White.   The strongest brands — whose strength and vitality derive from their ability to address demands of the real world — are refusing to comply.   They are not only defending internal programs but taking a stand against a vision of America that would roll back decades of hard-won civil rights progress.

Trump’s renewed assault on DEI isn't subtle.  From executive orders targeting federal contractors to rhetorical attacks that portray DEI as “anti-white” or “Marxist,” the message is unmistakable.  Diversity initiatives, even those grounded in equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws of the land, are treated as illegitimate.  The strategy mirrors earlier backlash politics, where gains made by marginalized groups are reframed as unfair advantages that must be clawed back. The subtext is even clearer: the social hierarchy that prevailed before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't moral failure but a natural order to be restored.

Corporate America’s response has been mixed. Some firms have quietly scrubbed DEI language from annual reports.  Others have dismantled programs entirely, citing legal risk or shareholder concerns.  But a notable group of strong companies has chosen a different path. They have publicly reaffirmed their commitments, resisted shareholder proposals designed to weaken DEI, and argued that inclusion isn't ideology but merely good business.

In today’s climate, that choice is neither safe nor easy.

Strong Brands Reject the Trump Premise

Apple is among the most prominent examples.  While much of Silicon Valley has hedged, Apple has continued to defend its diversity initiatives in shareholder meetings and public statements.  When conservative activists introduced proposals to limit DEI spending or oversight, Apple’s leadership rejected them outright.  The company has argued that diverse teams build better products for a global market and that inclusion is integral to innovation. Apple’s stance is notable not because it's radical, but because it refuses to accept the premise that fairness and excellence are mutually exclusive.

Costco Wholesale has taken an equally firm position.  Known for its unusually loyal workforce and low turnover, Costco has long emphasized internal equity, promotion from within, and inclusive management practices. When shareholders attempted to push anti-DEI resolutions, Costco’s board unanimously recommended voting them down. The company made clear that its culture of respect and inclusion was not a political fashion but a core reason for its success. In an era when many executives prefer silence, Costco’s clarity stands out.

In finance, where conservatism is often assumed to reign, several major institutions have resisted the rollback. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been blunt in rejecting calls to dismantle DEI.  He has framed inclusion as essential to serving a diverse customer base and attracting top talent. Goldman Sachs, despite scaling back one high-profile policy related to board diversity mandates, has continued to invest heavily in internal inclusion programs and pipeline initiatives. These firms understand that finance is global, multiracial, and competitive, and that retreating into a narrower vision of America would be self-defeating.

Johnson & Johnson represents another category of defiance: the legacy American company that understands history.  As a healthcare giant, J&J has tied DEI to patient outcomes, clinical research quality, and trust in medical systems.  Its leadership has emphasized that representation matters not just ethically but scientifically.  Rolling back inclusion in healthcare would mean poorer data, worse outcomes, and deeper mistrust among communities already underserved by the system. In this context, anti-DEI politics collide directly with public health realities.

Consumer brands, often seen as the most vulnerable to boycotts and backlash, have also shown admirable resolve.  Procter & Gamble has maintained its longstanding commitment to diversity, both internally and in its advertising.  P&G has argued for years that brands grow when they reflect the real world, not an imagined monoculture.  

e.l.f. Beauty, a smaller but influential player, has likewise doubled down on inclusion, framing it as authenticity rather than activism. These companies understand that younger consumers are not clamoring for a return to mid-century social norms; they live in a pluralistic America and expect brands to acknowledge that fact.

Microsoft occupies a middle ground between quiet pragmatism and principle.  While the company has adjusted some language to reduce political heat, it has retained substantive commitments to workforce diversity, accessibility, and inclusive design.  Microsoft’s leadership has consistently linked inclusion to long-term competitiveness, especially in a global talent market where innovation depends on attracting people from every background. In effect, Microsoft has refused to let a domestic political backlash dictate how it competes on a world stage.

Choosing Demographic Realism over a Demagogue's Narrative

What unites these companies is't ideology but realism. They recognize that the United States of the 2020s is not the United States of 1955. The workforce is more diverse, markets are global, and consumers are more informed. Attempting to erase DEI isn't a return to neutrality; it is an attempt to impose a selective amnesia about discrimination, exclusion, and unequal access.  Businesses that have learned from history understand that ignoring these realities carries its own risks.

The anti-DEI movement often claims to defend merit. But merit doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's shaped by access to education, networks, mentorship, and opportunity. DEI programs, at their best, aren't about lowering standards but widening the pool of people who can meet them.  Companies that abandon these efforts risk entrenching inefficiencies and blind spots that have nothing to do with excellence and everything to do with comfort.

There is also a legal and moral irony at play. The very civil rights laws that conservatives once opposed now protect companies that choose inclusion.  DEI initiatives grounded in equal opportunity and anti-discrimination principles are not violations of the law; they are often its logical extension. Framing them as radical is a rhetorical maneuver, not a legal argument.  Companies that understand this are less likely to panic when political winds shift.

The broader stakes extend beyond corporate policy.  Powerful institutions that comply with efforts to erase DEI help normalize a vision of America that minimizes or denies systemic inequality.  When they resist they help preserve a baseline consensus that the gains of the civil rights era aren't up for repeal, not even by a MAGA-intimidated GOP majority.  Corporate courage, imperfect as it may be, can act as a stabilizing force when democratic norms are under strain.

Critics will argue that corporations are self-interested, that their defiance is calculated rather than principled.  That is partly true. But self-interest doesn't negate impact.  In a political environment where elected leaders openly flirt with reversing civil rights progress, institutional resistance matters, regardless of motive. The result is a slower, less complete rollback than would otherwise occur.

It is also worth noting what silence accomplishes.  Companies that quietly dismantle DEI or hide behind vague statements enable the narrative that inclusion is optional, temporary, or suspect. Those that speak plainly disrupt that narrative. They force the debate into the open, where it can be judged on evidence rather than fear.

Power Grab through Demagoguery

Trump’s crusade against DEI is ultimately about power, not policy.  It seeks to define who belongs, who leads, and who decides.  Companies that defy this effort aren't claiming moral perfection, merely asserting that America’s future can't be built by pretending its past injustices never happened.  In refusing to go backward, they help hold the line between a pluralistic democracy and a nostalgic fantasy that never worked for most Americans.

The corporate courage on display shouldn't be overstated — as there are lasting brand benefits to addressing the real nation rather than a political blip — but neither should it be dismissed.  In an age when retreat is easy and conformity is rewarded, standing firm carries real costs.  These companies face lawsuits, boycotts, political threats, and relentless media scrutiny.  Yet they persist, not because DEI is fashionable, but because they understand that the alternative is a narrowing of opportunity that would ultimately harm their people, their customers, and the country they operate in.

The struggle over DEI isn't a sideshow. It's a proxy battle over whether the United States continues to move, however imperfectly, toward its stated ideals, or whether it reverses course under the guise of neutrality.  Corporate America didn't lead the civil rights movement, but today, some of its most influential leaders are helping prevent its unraveling.  In the face of a putsch to drag the nation back toward a pre-civil rights social order, that resistance matters more than ever.