Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — known in its final incarnation as DEI — met a sudden and unceremonious end at the State Department in early 2025. Its demise was not a quiet fading but a deliberate and public dismantling, marked by bold declarations and sweeping actions that have already begun to reshape the fabric of American diplomacy.
The ideals DEI championed were not novel to the prior Biden or Obama Administrations. The pursuit of a more representative US diplomatic corps spans over 150 years, tracing back to pioneers like Ebenezer D. Bassett, appointed in 1869 by President Ulysses S. Grant as the first African American diplomat. Frederick Douglass followed, serving as US Minister to Haiti and the Dominican Republic in the 1880s and ’90s. These early appointments, while symbolic, did not ignite a sustained movement, and progress languished for decades.
The modern drive to diversify American diplomacy gained momentum during the civil rights era and found steadfast advocates in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Ambassador Laurence “Larry” Palmer, a towering figure in the Western Hemisphere Bureau, was among those who mentored generations of officers of color and urged the Department to embody its professed values.
The pursuit of a more representative US diplomatic corps spans over 150 years.
Women, too, battled institutional inertia to ascend to diplomatic leadership. Efforts toward disability inclusion, long overdue, began to surface in the past two decades, leading to the installation of ramps, revisions to medical clearance policies, and gradual accommodations in field postings. Progress was painstaking but tangible.
*
The term “DEI” emerged prominently during the national introspection of 2020. The murder of George Floyd compelled organizations nationwide to self-examine, and the State Department was no exception. In 2021, Secretary Antony Blinken appointed a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, launching initiatives aimed at fostering a more representative, equitable, and inclusive institution.
In its brief but impactful final years, DEI spurred notable changes. Transparency in hiring and promotions improved. Paid internships broadened access for low-income applicants. Affinity groups flourished. Officers with disabilities benefited from expanded support, including enhanced access to assistive technologies and flexible work policies.
DEI also amplified the voices of often-marginalized communities — first-generation Americans, LGBTQ+ employees, religious minorities, and those from regional or rural backgrounds. For the first time, systemic barriers were openly acknowledged in Department-wide communications, breaking the silence that had long pervaded the corridors.
However, DEI’s successes made it a target. Conservative commentators decried it as ideological overreach. Congressional critics demanded audits, questioned funding allocations, and sought to defund DEI offices. Externally, the concept of “equity” was often misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented. Internally, support for the initiative, though widespread, was fragile. Career officers, wary of perceived “fads,” complied without genuine commitment. Trainings were attended but seldom internalized. Despite its deep-rooted history, DEI came to be viewed by some as a political project with a limited lifespan.
*
The culmination came on March 18, 2025, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced via social media, “DEI is gone, forever. This divisive and discriminatory practice has no place in our country or our diplomacy. We are restoring meritocracy.” This proclamation was not an isolated incident but part of a broader, aggressive campaign to dismantle DEI initiatives across federal agencies.
Elon Musk, serving in an advisory capacity to the administration, echoed this sentiment, stating, “DEI must DIE. The point was to end discrimination, not replace it with different discrimination.” Such statements were emblematic of the administration’s overt and unapologetic repudiation of DEI principles.
The aftermath was swift and severe. Staff dedicated to DEI efforts were reassigned. Budgets were frozen. Communications ceased. Affinity groups, once vibrant communities within the Department, faced uncertainty without institutional support. New officers, drawn by DEI’s promises, questioned their future in an environment where those commitments had been rescinded.
This was not merely a rollback; it was an erasure.
*
Yet, it is essential to remember what DEI represented — not just as a bureaucratic entity but as an ideal that energized countless officers and catalyzed moments of genuine progress. For a fleeting period, there was hope that American diplomacy could truly reflect the nation it serves. That diverse backgrounds and identities would be recognized as assets rather than obstacles. That mentorship and accessibility could supplant the entrenched exclusivity of traditional pipelines and pedigrees.
The death of DEI leaves an unfinished agenda and pressing questions: Will the remnants of its initiatives survive without institutional backing? Will the officers it sought to uplift remain in an environment that has seemingly turned its back on them? Will efforts to include the disabled, the marginalized, the unheard — also fade into obscurity?
The path forward is uncertain. Bureaucracies are inherently adaptive, and reform often resurfaces under new banners. However, the current trajectory suggests regression rather than progress. The conspicuous silence from leadership on these issues speaks volumes.
*
Diplomacy is a mirror of the state. When that mirror is narrow, distorted, or incomplete, so too is the policy it reflects. The world watches who America sends to speak for it. If the face of our diplomacy becomes less inclusive, our message abroad will sound less credible.
I have written before about the erosion of institutional memory and the undervaluing of long-term reform. The sudden end of DEI is not a standalone tragedy. It is the latest chapter in a long book of promising starts and quiet retreats.
And yet: ideals outlive institutions. DEI, even now, lives in the mentoring habits of Ambassadors who once benefited from it. It lives in the data sets still archived, in the interns whose lives it changed, in the entry-level officers who saw themselves in leadership for the first time. The torch will be picked up again — by those who remember what was lost, and why it mattered.
When it returns, perhaps under a new name, may the Department be more prepared — and this time, may the effort last.
