Amid growing political pushback against corporate diversity efforts, many companies are rebranding their DEI programs under new, more broadly palatable terms, according to reporting by Law360 on a recent study from shareholder advocacy group As You Sow.
The article, titled “Corp. Diversity Policies Take On New Names Amid DEI Pushback,” highlights how businesses are continuing their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion while strategically shifting the language used to describe those initiatives. Instead of explicitly using terms like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” companies are increasingly opting for alternatives such as “human capital management,” “fairness,” and “belonging.” This pivot reflects a calculated response to mounting legal and political scrutiny, indicating that while the terminology may change, the underlying goals of fostering inclusive workplaces remain intact. It’s a sign that business leaders are beginning to understand that diversity remains a performance driver, even if the path forward demands a more nuanced approach.
While many corporations are choosing a quieter route by rebranding DEI initiatives, others are taking a more direct stance in response to the broader climate of pressure—especially that driven by Trump-era rhetoric. NPR’s recent profile of Abbe Lowell’s new law firm, Lowell & Associates, illustrates a more assertive strategy. Rather than retreating from the public arena, Lowell is building a legal practice specifically designed to defend individuals and institutions targeted by Trump and his allies.
His clients—ranging from whistleblowers to elected officials who have challenged the former president—symbolize a proactive embrace of the legal fight to uphold democratic principles. In doing so, Lowell rejects quiet compliance and affirms a louder, values-driven resistance. His actions represent a bold counter to the wave of institutions choosing discretion as their primary strategy, reinforcing that the legal field has a role to play in defending both justice and inclusive governance.
Amid these varied responses, the judiciary has begun to clarify the legal boundaries of diversity-focused practices. In a recent decision striking down a federal executive order that targeted Perkins Coie, a U.S. federal court upheld the legitimacy of the Mansfield Rule—a widely adopted initiative encouraging law firms to consider underrepresented candidates in hiring and promotion. The court found that the Mansfield framework does not impose quotas or preferential treatment but instead expands opportunity by addressing implicit bias and encouraging a broader, merit-based evaluation of candidates.
This decision offers a legal foundation for organizations seeking to uphold or evolve their DEI efforts, affirming that well-designed diversity strategies can align with anti-discrimination laws and strengthen—not undermine—meritocratic principles. It signals that thoughtful inclusion efforts are not only permissible, but defensible, even amid growing ideological resistance.
Meanwhile, the business case for DEIA continues to gain traction. In a recent presentation titled “The Evolving Landscape of Diversity in Legal Hiring,” delivered to the CFCALA Luncheon, Laura Leopard, Founder and GM of Leopard Solutions, emphasized that DEIA has evolved from aspirational ideals to measurable business drivers.
While some traditional narratives around DEI may be losing their rhetorical edge under political pressure, the numbers speak for themselves. McKinsey & Co. reported that companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 36% more likely to outperform their peers in profitability. Supporting these trends, Acritas Research—drawing on feedback from over 20,000 law firm clients—reported that diverse legal teams earn 25% more of their clients’ legal spend, are 1.5 times more likely to receive a perfect 10 performance rating and earn Net Promoter Scores over three times higher than less diverse teams.
Taken together, these developments point to a broader realization: business, particularly in the legal and corporate sectors, performs better with diversity. Despite backlash, institutions are beginning to grasp this reality, whether through subtle rebranding or more vocal advocacy. For even the most committed DEIA champions, the slow pace of progress is prompting a reconsideration of tactics. What emerges is a landscape marked not by retreat, but by adaptation—a willingness to innovate, reframe, and, when necessary, fight for inclusion.
In an era where the language may shift, the data remains—and the direction of progress, however glacial, is increasingly hard to deny.
