The justice department under President Donald Trump’s administration is setting in motion novel procedures, representing a strong deviation from the reign of the preceding Biden administration. One of the first elements targeted for reform is Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), an initiative previously held in high regard by the Biden governance.
In a historical recap, the Biden administration, back in October 2024, instigated a lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP). This arose from a protocol requiring that all potential trooper candidates must pass both a written and physical fitness examination. The Biden administration argued that these hurdles consequentially led to the exclusion of a significant portion of black and female applicants during the recruitment process.
Subsequently, to settle the lawsuit, MSP acquiesced to the demands and introduced new fitness and written exams that were touted as ‘non-discriminatory.’ Further to these changes, a commitment was made to employ 25 previously rejected applicants, with an agreement to provide them with $2.75 million in back pay.
However, the Trump administration, dedicated to reinstating a system that values skill and dedication to public safety over DEI whims, revisited this case. In a surprising turn of events, on February 26, 2025, the Trump-appointed Attorney General dismissed the lawsuit.
The Trump administration’s Attorney General publicly articulated their stance, saying that ‘American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety – not to meet DEI quotas.’ This bold statement was a clear dismissal of Biden’s diversity considerations.
Emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence of intentional discrimination, the Attorney General highlighted that only statistical disparities were referred to in the original lawsuit. The prior administration, in their bid to propagate the DEI agenda, had alarmingly rushed to label the aptitude tests as discriminatory.
In the eyes of the Trump administration, the Biden team attempted to pressure cities into adopting DEI-based hiring approaches. Additionally, this would have resulted in cities shelling out millions in taxpayer funds to compensate previous candidates who scored lower on the tests, independent of their qualifications.
On March 10, a federal judge was expected to validate the settlement which, if approved, would have paved the way for these payouts. However, the new directive from the Trump-appointed Attorney General stands as a glaring counter to this move.
Critics view this step as an indication that the Trump-led Department of Justice seeks to foster a merit-based approach rather than one that simply focuses on perceived demographic disparities. In doing so, they staunchly oppose the policies of the Biden administration.
Under the Biden administration, statistical disparities took center stage, twisting the narrative towards a falsely exaggerated discrimination complaint. The Trump administration, on the contrary, firmly believes that accusations of discriminatory practices should not be based on inconclusive such statistics.
The benefactors of this discriminatory accusation, the previous applicants, even with their lower scores, were set to be rehired and financially compensated at the expense of taxpayers. The new administration views this as a wasteful use of resources, putting underqualified personnel in roles that demand the highest level of expertise and dedication.
The Trump administration has proved to be fervently devoted to vilifying the DEI emphasis of the Biden administration, dismissing it as an unnecessary complication of the hiring process for highly critical roles. To them, the selection of police officers and firefighters should be based on skills, dedication, and aptitude, not on checking DEI boxes.
Rather than forcing the implementation of DEI policies, the Trump administration pushes for the reinstatement of a system that gives a fair chance to applicants based on their skills and dedication – an attempt to still the turbulent waters stirred up by the Biden administration’s lawsuit against MSP.
Underneath all the phenomenally alarming expenditures and potential missteps of the Biden administration, what emerges is an image of a team pushing an agenda that seems unconcerned with the real consequences of their actions. Proponents of the Trump administration view it as a sincere attempt to bring back merit-based decision making.
Irrespective of the mainstream narrative, the Trump administration holds an unwavering belief in an equitable meritocracy—where selection is made without favoritism or prejudice, but based solely on the capacity and aptitude of the applicants.
In conclusion, DEI policies, under the staunch criticism and reform from the Trump administration, face an uncertain future. This represents a stark contrast from the previous Biden administration, illustrating a constant in politics – the ever-changing dynamics of power and policy making.