‘The intent or purpose of these programs is to create fair and inclusive environments… and provide opportunity to everyone’: Canadian HR leader
The Trump administration has ordered a significant overhaul of how the United States evaluates human rights abroad, instructing its diplomats to treat foreign diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — along with abortion access, gender-affirming care for minors and certain migration policies — as potential violations.
The directive reshapes one of Washington’s longest-standing foreign policy tools, and is already prompting sharp criticism from rights organisations who argue the changes amount to a politicised reframing of universal human rights norms.
For Canadian organizations, this creates a complex landscape. DEI efforts have evolved over several decades and Canada has adopted similar frameworks grounded in constitutional protections and human rights law.
Janet Bray, Director, Human Resources for Pier 4 in Toronto, believes it’s important for organizations to stay focused on the intent of DEI-based policies and programs. “They were never introduced to harm any individual, but to bring fairness to all and to processes,” she says. “The intent or purpose of these programs is to create fair and inclusive environments that promote representation and participation of all individuals and provide opportunity to everyone.”
DEI under fire
The State Department’s new guidance, distributed to embassies ahead of its annual Human Rights Report, requires officials to highlight “infringements” tied to affirmative action programs, DEI-based employment policies and workplace preferences based on identity categories. Officials must also detail state-subsidized abortions and the estimated number of abortions conducted annually.
The instructions extend to restrictions on speech, including the types of online safety or “hate speech” laws adopted in parts of Europe. These measures will now be recorded as infringements on free expression.
State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the changes reflect an effort to confront “new destructive ideologies [that] have given safe harbor to human rights violations,” adding: “The Trump administration will not allow these human rights violations, such as the mutilation of children, laws that infringe on free speech, and racially discriminatory employment practices, to go unchecked… Enough is enough.”
A senior State Department official described the revised framework as a way to “change the behaviour of governments,” emphasizing that rights were “given to us by God, our creator, not by governments.”
Critics say the US is redefining human rights
Rights groups have accused the administration of turning the long-established report into a platform for domestic political battles. Former senior State Department official Uzra Zeya said the administration was “weaponising international human rights for domestic partisan ends,” arguing that attempts “to label DEI as a human rights violation set a new low.”
Advocacy organisations say the reorientation sidelines concerns historically documented by the report — including abuses faced by women, LGBTQ+ communities and ethnic and religious minorities — while amplifying criticisms of countries whose policies clash with the administration’s ideology.
The most recent human rights report, released earlier this year, was roughly a third of the length of its predecessors and omitted broad categories previously considered core areas of concern.
A fraught moment for organisational DEI efforts
The widening political pushback against DEI in the United States is already shaping decisions in boardrooms, HR departments and recruitment teams. The new foreign-policy posture is expected to fuel that uncertainty, particularly for multinational employers navigating both domestic political pressure and international obligations.
Yet research suggests that HR professionals remain steadfast in their support for diversity initiatives. A recent HRCI survey found that 96% of HR professionals believe workforce diversity contributes to better organisational performance, while 71% say they personally support DEI programs. Only a small minority (11%) reported opposition.
Amy Dufrane, CEO of HRCI, wrote that “a diverse workforce helps companies run better,” noting that varied perspectives improve problem-solving and engagement. Many HR leaders surveyed said their organisations were adjusting programs to remain legally compliant rather than abandoning them.
Victor Ray, of the University of Iowa and Harvard’s Institute for Business in Global Society, said, “HR Managers support it because it's good policy — they've seen it work,” adding that diversity efforts help organisations reach new talent and markets.
Companies recalibrate, but few are retreating
Even as legal and political pressures intensify, most HR teams are not dismantling DEI structures. Among the 31% reporting changes, the majority are “reevaluating programmes,” while only 15% said they were being eliminated. Some employers are opting to reframe program language — shifting toward terms such as “culture and belonging” — while maintaining the underlying initiatives.
Consultant Daisy Auger-Dominguez said companies are trying to balance clarity and caution: “Reframe it if you must, but don't retreat. Because consistency matters more than that right now.”
At the same time, legal experts warn that confusion about what DEI entails is contributing to over-corrections. Emily Nash, a partner at Foley Hoag, said: “People don't understand what DEI really is, and what is actually illegal,” adding that employers can maintain their commitment to inclusion as long as programs align with existing employment laws.
Bray says the new U.S. foreign policy could have an impact for Canadian organizations. “So many corporations stretch across borders and even for those that don’t, the U.S. often leads, positive or negative, and Canada follows,” she says. “I hope that we can stand strong and acknowledge that what we are working towards is a performance-based culture that is providing opportunities, not preference across all identity categories.”
HR professionals navigate a shifting landscape
For HR leaders — particularly those working across borders — the US administration’s reclassification of DEI as a human rights issue adds another layer of complexity. Multinationals operating in countries with legislated diversity requirements may now find their practices listed in a critical US government report.
Still, survey data shows that HR teams continue to view employees, culture and organisational values — not politics — as the central drivers behind DEI decisions. As Dufrane noted: “The key is making sure efforts are anchored in your organization’s core values. The values should drive the programs, not the other way around.”
The State Department’s new approach ensures the global debate over DEI will not remain confined to domestic policy — and HR leaders may increasingly find themselves navigating its diplomatic consequences as well as its workforce implications.
This U.S. move comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney recently declared an end to Canada's “feminist foreign policy,” marking a clear departure from the doctrine championed by previous Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government. While Carney's shift signals a move toward pragmatic economic dealmaking, it remains unclear how Canada will respond to U.S. pressure on DEI initiatives.
Carney has stated that while Canada no longer has a feminist foreign policy, it still wants to uphold values on the world stage that include LGBTQ+ rights and combatting violence against women. However, the extent to which Canada will defend DEI initiatives on the international stage — particularly in trade negotiations or diplomatic discussions — remains uncertain under this new government.
“People take things very literally and interpret things in the extreme, and unfortunately sometimes in order to make significant and meaningful change we have to take small steps,” says Bray. “We need to educate and bring people along, and we can’t just say it and assume everyone will be onside.”
“I don’t believe this means PM Carney is aligned with the U.S. — I think it means his approach is more measured,” she adds.
