As Employers Pull Back on Public Inclusion Efforts, Accountability Matters More

First proposed in Congress in 1971, Women’s Equality Day is a formal recognition of women’s progress and a reminder of the work that still needs to be done.

For employers, that work means equal pay and equal opportunity for women in the workplace. It means investing in and maintaining systems designed to identify and reduce bias. It also means prioritizing inclusion and embedding it into the organization’s culture, hiring practices, and evaluation criteria.

As the Donald Trump administration continues its crackdown on what it refers to as “illegal DEI,” many organizations have backpedaled on promises and initiatives, while others have continued this work quietly, behind the scenes.

A recent Catalyst survey found that while 55 percent of organizations publicly signaled a shift away from inclusion efforts, only 34 percent had actually decreased those efforts.

“Leaders are operating in a highly charged legal and cultural environment . . . where even lawful, values-based efforts to promote fairness can be mischaracterized or targeted,” Andrew Grissom, a senior director at Catalyst, a global nonprofit focused on women’s advancement and inclusion, told NPQ. “Some companies are becoming quieter or more careful in how they talk about inclusion publicly.”

A Shift Toward Quiet Inclusion

Catalyst’s research revealed that organizations are still committed to inclusion, and in many cases, they are continuing the work privately even while publicly moving away from DEI.

“Most employees [surveyed] still say their organizations are committed to fairness, inclusion, and diversity,” said Grissom. “And many organizations understand that pulling back entirely would create real talent, culture, and business risks.”

The dismantling of DEI was a key campaign promise from Trump. Since he took office, he has been fulfilling that promise; however, his administration’s actions have raised questions around the legality of DEI, creating uncertainty about which programs and practices could be considered unlawful.

As the Donald Trump administration continues its crackdown on what it refers to as “illegal DEI,” many organizations have backpedaled on promises and initiatives, while others have continued this work quietly, behind the scenes.

This environment is challenging for nonprofit organizations that rely on government grants or private funding that can shift with the winds of politics. That uncertainty has resulted in a culture of complying in advance. Many organizations that continue to strive for gender equality are doing so quietly, out of the public eye, or rebranding DEI initiatives to avoid ire from the federal government.

Employment data from 2025 also show stark racial differences in how women fared in the job market. Though Black women made up just 14.1 percent of the female workforce at the start of the year, they accounted for 54.7 percent of total female job losses between January and August.

“Black women have already borne a disproportionate share of the damage,” Carol Joyner, director of Family Values @ Work Action, a national network advancing policies and organizing that support women, caregivers, low-wage workers, and families, told NPQ. “That should tell us who is likely to be harmed first when institutions abandon visible commitments to inclusion.”

The shift toward quiet inclusion has forced organizations to look closely at their values and business priorities. Joyner also noted that “organizations that quietly capitulate may become less likely to hire and promote women, people of color, and people with disabilities.”

Even when an organization pulls back publicly, that doesn’t mean abandoning the work. “The strongest organizations are not simply changing labels; they are trying to be responsive, not reactive, embedding inclusion into how decisions are made, how leaders are held accountable, and how employees experience fairness, trust, and opportunity day to day,” Grissom said.

Does Progress Die in Darkness?

Women’s Equality Day grew out of the 1970 Women’s Strike for Equality, which brought inequities in employment, education, and childcare directly into the spotlight. Issues that had been shrouded in darkness were now brightly lit and highly visible.

It has become harder to ignore the systems perpetuating these issues or to operate as if there were no tangible solutions.

“Visibility has always mattered to progress,” said Grissom. “If companies become less willing to name gender inequality, there is a risk that employees will interpret that silence as retreat, even when work continues behind the scenes.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the lack of public visibility will stall progress, but it may make that progress harder to sustain.

Noreen Farrell, a civil rights attorney, leader on gender justice, and executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, told NPQ that less public discourse from an organization means “there’s no longer a visible standard for anyone to be held to.”

“The real danger for women in the workplace is the slow disappearance of any shared expectation that employers are supposed to be doing this work at all,” said Farrell.

As with the roots of Women’s Equality Day, publicly naming the challenges facing women brings ingrained biases and systemic barriers into view and sets a standard for those in charge to address them.

That standard can also be weakened when organizations change or remove DEI language.

The effects can extend beyond public messaging. “When an organization stops naming gender or racial inequality, it becomes easier to stop measuring disparities, targeting resources, or holding leaders accountable,” said Joyner.

It has become harder to ignore the systems perpetuating these issues or to operate as if there were no tangible solutions.

“I believe that the language we use influences our actions and the intended outcomes,” Jennifer Camota Luebke, researcher and CEO of Relay Resources, a leading disability social enterprise nonprofit, told NPQ. “When organizations dilute messaging, even if practices continue, it dulls the understanding, reach, and impact of the importance and urgency of the intended change.”

Camota Luebke sees the erasure of DEI language as slowing down progress, especially in recruiting and retaining women in executive positions and traditionally male-dominated industries.

“We’ve been talking about women generally. But when we look at women who hold multiple identities, the picture is bleak,” Hady Méndez, founder of Boldly Speaking LLC and author of Calladita No More: My Latina Journey and the Lessons that Shaped Me, told NPQ.

Beyond the higher job losses among Black women, Méndez points to the role of intersectionality: “For queer women, women of color, and others navigating more than one margin, the movement backward is amplified and felt more deeply.”

Megan Fuciarelli, the founder and chief empowerment officer of US² Consulting, a global consulting firm focused on workplace culture, inclusion, and accountability, draws a distinction between changing the vocabulary and becoming unwilling to name the inequity itself.

“You cannot address gender inequity if you become afraid to acknowledge that gender inequity exists,” she said in an interview with NPQ. “We can change the vocabulary without changing our values.”

That distinction also matters inside the workplace. To ensure continued progress, the lack of visibility should never extend to employees. They should know what an organization is doing to reach gender equality, what systems are in place, who is accountable for tracking these systems, and what happens when a system falls short.

“When employees sense that certain conversations are no longer welcome, they may start editing themselves instead of raising concerns,” said Fuciarelli.

For her, the focus is on what women actually experience at work: “My concern isn’t whether companies continue using the letters DEI. My concern is whether women continue experiencing equitable access to opportunity and workplaces where they feel psychologically safe enough to speak when something isn’t working.”

“But if less visibility becomes less accountability,” she said, “women will pay the price.”

Quiet Inclusion Needs Stronger Accountability

For Grissom, the most important question is whether leaders are still doing the internal work of inclusion, including “examining talent systems, identifying where women face barriers, and making changes that improve access to opportunity and advancement.”

In practice, he said, quiet inclusion could mean “more emphasis on fair processes, inclusive leadership behaviors, employee experience, and evidence-based decision-making.”

But even if that internal work continues, reduced visibility can still weaken accountability.

“My concern is not simply that inclusion work becomes less visible. It is that reduced visibility can eventually produce reduced accountability,” Cheryl Ingram, DEI strategist and deputy executive director of Silicon Valley Equity in Education Institute, shared with NPQ in an email exchange.

That makes explicit accountability and internal ownership even more important. For Grissom, quiet inclusion work must be paired with both: “Leaders need to explicitly claim accountability for inclusive outcomes before those outcomes are achieved, and name when gaps in promotion, sponsorship, representation, or opportunity are leadership problems to solve.”

The real risk isn’t in altering language, according to Courtney K. Ford, founder and CEO of CKF Collective, a leadership transition advisory firm that works with nonprofit CEOs, boards, and executive search partners. It’s in losing infrastructure, including “the accountability, practices, and everyday rituals that make the work real.”

Ford cautioned against confusing language with behavioral change in an interview with NPQ. “We can still change institutional norms, power dynamics, bias, and the conditions around leadership without calling it DEI.”

Measure the Outcomes

Even as the voices grow quiet and the work becomes less loud-and-proud and more heads-down, there are still ways to measure progress.

Grissom recommends focusing on the outcomes, which produce the data needed to determine whether an organization is truly moving toward gender equality.

“To understand whether workplace equality for women is advancing, organizations need deeper analytics at the points where real decisions are made: who is hired, who receives stretch assignments, who gets feedback and sponsorship, who is promoted, who stays, who leaves, and who advances into leadership,” he said.

Ingram warned against letting measurement and accountability disappear along with the language.

“The fight for gender equity has never taken place on an even playing field,” she said. “When organizations stop measuring disparities, communicating about them, establishing goals, or assigning accountability for outcomes, inequity does not simply disappear because we stopped using the language.”

Another important metric, according to Grissom, is employee experience data. Understanding the employee experience sheds light on hidden biases and unfair practices and helps leaders create supportive environments for women and all employees.

That includes asking women directly about what they’re experiencing. “Women’s Equality Day gives organizations an opportunity to celebrate progress, but it should also create space for reflection,” Fuciarelli said. “Don’t just tell women they’re valued. Ask women what they’re actually experiencing.”

Grissom emphasized that even if federal demographic reporting requirements change, organizations still need workforce data to understand whether they’re making progress toward gender equality. He also stressed that collecting that data would not become illegal if the reporting requirement changes.

“Companies still need reliable, privacy-conscious people analytics to understand whether their systems are fair and whether women have equal access to opportunity, advancement, and leadership,” noted Grissom. “The organizations that keep measuring, keep communicating clearly, and keep acting on what they learn will be better positioned to sustain progress in a cautious environment.”

As we approach Women’s Equality Day, Fuciarelli would like to see fewer social media posts and more accountability: “The real measure isn’t what appears on a company’s LinkedIn page on August 26. It’s what women experience inside that organization on August 27 and every day afterward.”