Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI): the three terms that have become trigger words within an escalating culture war. Across decades, though particularly during the Biden Administration, several government initiatives focusing on the expansion of DEI programs were implemented, aiming to tackle discrimination based on race and gender and increase environmental justice efforts to aid disadvantaged communities. Notably, President Biden partitioned off 40 percent of federal funds to directly go toward clean energy environmental maintenance programs, assisting rural communities affected by environmental hazards within their residential areas. However, the Trump Administration views the previous administration’s actions as a waste, claiming that these programs aid the underprivileged too much and produce a form of “reverse discrimination” that negatively impacts the white majority population. On President Trump’s first day in office, he issued an executive order cutting all government grants to DEI, DEIA, and environmental justice initiatives. This ultimately caused U.S. residents in rural communities to lose $1.5 billion in federal aid — aid originally earmarked for some of the hardest workers in America.
President Trump’s executive order entailed the termination of all DEI, DEIA, and environmental justice-related committees and office positions, entirely removing titles such as “Chief Diversity Officer.” The order also requires consistent financial budget reporting by each committee and layoffs of funding from other departments, to strategically dismantle and defund these programs from remaining successful. Through his new policy, President Trump has also indirectly targeted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), reversing previously implemented initiatives such as wastewater regulations from the Biden Administration, to instead use federal funding for the proper operation of businesses. With the EPA’s adherence to the administration’s actions, environmental management is significantly decreasing, thus limiting the extent to which underprivileged communities most affected by the environment are able to sustain themselves. As of 2024, only fourteen environmental violation lawsuits have been filed, being the fewest of any amount filed in the 21st century. As a result of the Trump Administration’s keen focus on the de-prioritization of the environmental agenda, environmental protection is projectingly decreasing.
Some states, including Indiana and Florida, have pushed for anti-DEI and hardly any environmental policy legislation, adding to the number of disadvantaged communities suffering from the additional effects of the lack of government support. Simultaneously, the majority of these states have large rural populations and topography associated with prime agricultural production. However, rural communities in states like California and Maryland, which have been long-standing supporters of DEI and environmental justice initiatives, continue to fight for legislative action, despite challenges amongst the government that add on to the baggage these communities hold. Just weeks before the January executive order was issued, Wes Moore, governor of Maryland, established the “Valuing Opportunity, Inclusion, and Community Equity,” or VOICE initiative. The initiative sought to reinforce the necessity of environmental justice for rural communities, keying in on health and economic effects for those most affected by pollution. Through VOICE, an interagency advisory council was established to mitigate the program’s efforts; however, shortly after the administration’s executive order was passed, VOICE was challenged in federal court and shut down. Additionally, at the beginning of September, the EPA’s budget was proposed to be cut by around $200 million, placing support for underprivileged communities at dire risk.
During the 1980s, the EPA experienced dire funding cuts under the Reagan Administration, resulting in a 44 percent budget decrease and 23 percent faculty reduction. In addition to these cuts, President Reagan also de-funded and eliminated several environmental justice and rural development initiatives, decreasing 60 percent of funding for water and sewer management programs throughout the nation. With the lack of support from the EPA, spillage and environmental hazardous issues continued to persist. Within the state of California alone, over 500,000 people had been put at risk of extreme health effects from the lack of aid during disasters and built-up water pollution. Smaller, disadvantaged communities had more pressure placed on them to fund their own environmental projects to combat local issues, increasing the amount of socioeconomic instability within these regions.
Supporters of the current administration’s actions follow its main focus on prioritizing funding for the operation of businesses, persuading it to be the most beneficial in protecting consumers and the general economy. However, reducing funding of DEI programs that work to protect underprivileged individuals directly contradicts the intention of increasing the quality of consumer livelihood. This continues to grant more benefits for the wealthy rather than the underprivileged, who have less economic mobility. This especially pertains to individuals in rural, agricultural regions, who already struggle in environments where resources are scarce, work hard to secure economic stability, and toil to “prove” their place in American society. In June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cut $148.6 million of department funds. Of these costs, $2,500,000 was originally designated to increase market and land opportunities for underserved communities in Wisconsin, but was revoked to “put an end to the wasteful spending… under President leadership.” Without general aid, these rural populations have less resources to sustain their property, contributing to the 19 percent decrease in farms throughout the nation. These individuals also face the direct effects of increased erosion and water pollution, air pollution from neighboring factories, greenhouse gas, and natural disasters, which all lead to extreme health effects that even spread to livestock. Moreover, if these issues are barely regulated, the general population will eventually suffer from the effects. The agricultural sector contributes an average of $1.5 trillion in GDP, with consumers indulging in its produce daily. Hence, consumers interact with products contaminated by the community’s environmental impacts. This can include interactions with new-strain bacteria, which spread within agricultural produce and directly affect consumers, leading to widespread health effects.
Under similar circumstances, President Reagan’s cuts were made in line with his own conservative agenda and desire to decrease government involvement in social issues, rather prioritizing the prosperity of businesses over the livelihoods of the underprivileged — those who serve as the backbone of our nation. It was not until the 2010s that the detrimental environmental policies of the Reagan Administration were reversed when President Obama reinforced the importance of environmental protection, budgeting $10 billion to the EPA. Since then, environmental justice and Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) initiatives have prospered, granting rural communities the attention they deserve. Yet, the Trump Administration is working to reverse this success. Underprivileged, rural communities will struggle to maintain a healthy lifestyle in the safest environment possible under the dismantling of these programs, with funding cuts rippling throughout every related government body. A safe environment will simply not be attainable, or even available to the majority of them — an effect all under the name of the conservative agenda.
Featured Image Source: Nevada Current
