A brief note on terminology: I use LGBTQIA+ in this paper to maintain inclusivity when discussing this topic, referring to the broad global community of queer-identifying individuals, in terms of both sexuality and gender identity. Direct references do not all follow this terminology, so to maintain the integrity of my citations, I sometimes use other variations of the term with the same intent.

​

          Introduction

​

         Corporate pinkwashing, defined in this essay series as commercial marketing practices where an entity presents itself as pro-LGBTQIA+ to deflect from abusive and discriminatory practices, often against the communities they claim to support, saw a documented rise beginning in the early 2000s when US corporations began using the strategy and other multinationals began to follow their lead. From 2009 to 2020, annual grant dollars for LGBTQIA+ groups grew by $100 million[1]. Yet, corporations throughout this period continued to abet politicians in committing human rights violations against members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Large, multinational corporations donate millions of dollars to anti-LGBTQIA+ politicians. These politicians pass laws that harm LGBTQIA+ members, such as ending healthcare access for transgender individuals or targeting individuals with HIV[2]. Recently, U.S. corporate pinkwashing has seen a marked decline. While pinkwashing is an inauthentic and even harmful form of representation, it was not replaced with more genuine expressions of allyship, but instead by explicitly harmful practices toward the LGBTQIA+ community. The United States has positioned itself as the global corporate standard, so the reduction in its performative pinkwashing in favor of harmful actions will likely spill over into the global corporate landscape.

​

          Moving Away From Pinkwashing
 

          A conservative shift in American politics has contributed to the end of corporate pinkwashing. For example, 39% of companies planned to decrease overall engagement in 2025 Pride events, a far greater number than the  9% of companies that reduced Pride engagement in  2024[3]. Companies with large American markets such as Anheuser-Busch, Booz Allen Hamilton, Citi, Comcast, Diageo, Garnier, Lowe’s, Mastercard, Nissan, PepsiCo, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Skyy Vodka, Target, and Walmart, have all halted or lowered their support for Pride parades in America[4]. Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte, Comcast, and Darcars stopped sponsoring WorldPride 2025 (hosted in Washington D.C.), which is one of the largest LGBTQIA+ celebrations in the world. Other nations are seeing this trend, too. American company Deloitte and British company Skyscanner both ceased financial support for Pride in London[5]. Pride in Liverpool was cancelled for 2025 because declining corporate financial support made the event unfeasible[6]. Similar situations occurred in Greece, Bulgaria, Estonia, and Denmark[7]. 

​

          Corporate support for other aspects of Pride month has also begun to decline. 43% of Fortune 1000 companies decided to reduce external shows of support for pride, such as having pride merchandise lines and sponsoring pride-affiliated social media influencers[8]. Furthermore, corporate monetary donations to LGBTQIA+ support groups are dwindling. The Trevor Project is an LGBTQIA+ support organization that provides suicide prevention services and crisis intervention to at-risk LGBTQIA+ teenagers. Companies like Macy’s reduced their support from $1 million+ in donations to $500,000+ over the last year, and Google, which was listed as a “Current Brand Partner” as recently as December of 2024, is no longer listed at all on the Trevor Project’s donor list[9]. Accenture has also disappeared from the “Current Brand Partner” list, and the Coca-Cola Company has decreased its donation from $500,000+ to $250,000+[10]. Another LGBTQIA+ advocacy organization, PFLAG, is seeing similar declines. PFLAG’s Atlanta chapter has lost corporate donor support, while being fully reliant on donations for functionality[11]. 

​

          The declining corporate support for LGBTQIA+ related events and organizations is a direct result of the present U.S. administration’s overarching position on LGBTQIA+ rights. President Donald Trump began his term stating, “the official policy of the United States Government [is] that there are only two genders: male and female”[12]. This was not mere rhetoric. President Trump signed an executive order that limits federal recognition of sex to male and female[13] and another that declared: “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology”[14].

​

          President Trump also attacked Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) programs by issuing executive orders. DEI programs provide need-based support to ensure equal access to success and create a sense of belonging for the broad spectrum of human identities. These programs include equal opportunity guarantees for members of the LGBTQIA+ community. President Trump’s executive orders dismantle federal DEI efforts by removing mandates and funding. Private sector companies anticipated President Trump’s federal action against DEI by ending their own DEI programs[15]. Companies like McDonald's and Meta ended their DEI programs and specifically noted changing political landscapes[16]. Companies that did not end DEI programs faced direct attacks from President Trump. He publicly derided Apple on Truth Social, exclaiming, “APPLE SHOULD GET RID OF DEI RULES, NOT JUST MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEM. DEI WAS A HOAX THAT HAS BEEN VERY BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY. DEI IS GONE!!!”[17]. Governmental pressure on corporations to end DEI programs has disseminated from the federal executive to state leadership. For example, some state-level attorneys general are pressing law firms for information on DEI practices[18]. Litigation threats encourage these firms to end their DEI practices. Corporations, fearing political consequences and prioritizing their economic bottom line over the LGBTQIA+ cause, choose to abandon their LGBTQIA+ and broader DEI support policies, removing pinkwashing facades while leaving harmful practices in place.  

 

          The Impact of Ending Corporate DEI Practices On LGBTQIA+ People

​

          Reductions in DEI practices actually have much the same effect as pinkwashing, but rather than simply obscuring systemic inequities that the LGBTQIA+ community and other marginalized groups face, particularly in entering the workforce and thriving within it, reductions in DEI eliminate recognition of such inequities entirely. 

For example, implicit biases are a primary contributor to the underrepresentation of LGBTQIA+ identifying individuals in management occupations[19]. These biases impact hiring decisions and competency evaluations, which DEI practices recognize and work to challenge. DEI practices can also include training to challenge explicit biases[20]. DEI training can be used to empower individuals and develop active cultures of change[21]. Removing these training opportunities eliminates opportunities for the empowerment of marginalized employees, allowing bias to grow. Furthermore, DEI increases worker comfort with being “out” in the workplace[22]. This means openly identifying as LGBTQIA+, in the same way heterosexual workers might feel comfortable expressing and discussing their heterosexuality at work. 

​

          DEI practices extend far beyond workplace tolerance. Inclusion can look like expanding health insurance coverage for transgender individuals, providing time-off for recovery related to transitions, and creating queer employee groups[23]. The federal removal of DEI practices has led to federal workers losing insurance coverage for gender-affirming care by 2026[24]. This will negatively impact the nearly 14,000 federal employees who identify as transgender[25]. Additionally, private employer health plans often align their benefits with federal standards, so private employees stand to lose coverage as well, unless private employers voluntarily cover gender-affirming care. Given the rollbacks to the DEI programs that instituted these expansions, voluntary coverage is increasingly less likely. The overlap in public and private insurance demonstrates how declining governmental support for LGBTQIA+ inclusion allows corporations to reduce their private support, ultimately reducing the safety of LGBTQIA+ (particularly trans-identifying) people. A failure to provide gender-affirming care creates psychosocial distress and contributes to poor health, which will become increasingly common as companies reduce any semblance of support for the LGBTQIA+ community[26]. 

​

          Impact of Declining Pinkwashing and the Perception of Support

​

          Pinkwashing exploits the purchasing power of LGBTQIA+ people while undermining trust in the authenticity of support. It increases feelings of marginalization and the risk of tokenization, which has a negative psychological impact[27]. Companies reinforce harmful practices when they boast superficial actions as a victory for the LGBTQIA+ community without adequate genuine and material support[28]. In the media, for example, pinkwashing strategies include implied queerness and shallow representations of the LGBTQIA+ community[29]. Companies expect such bland media approaches to satisfy the LGBTQIA+ community without angering less supportive consumers.

​

          Yet, consumers of corporate products have become increasingly knowledgeable of pinkwashing and corporate hypocrisy. Corporations’ performative LGBTQIA+ displays now alienate both conservative and liberal consumers, because liberal consumers are hyper-wary of pinkwashing and conservative consumers disapprove of LGBTQIA+ representation in corporate production[30]. Without the drastic shift in government policy away from LGBTQIA+ rights, companies may have succumbed to liberal consumer pressure  to genuinely represent the LGBTQIA+ population, since superficial representation was failing to appeal to the consumer base they attempted to target. Unfortunately, any opportunity for progress has been reversed because of the government-influenced cultural shift away from DEI in general and LGBTQIA+ rights and representation in particular. 

​

          The United States saw a 4% reduction in popular support of LGBT people openly expressing their sexual orientation/gender identity from 2024 to 2025[31]. The reduction from 2021 is 13%, a very significant decrease. Of 26 countries included in the Ipsos LGBT+ pride report, 23 saw reductions in support of open expression of LGBT identity from 2024 to 2025[32]. Support still exists for same-sex marriage/recognition, even though it has decreased on average from 74% in 2021 to 69% in 2025[33]. Support for brand promotion of LGBT rights has decreased from 49% in 2021 to 41% in 2025[34]. As discussed earlier, there is potential for this decrease in support to be a result of both conservative and liberal backlash against pinkwashing policies. 

​

          Declining support is negatively impacting the LGBTQIA+ community. Suicide attempt rates have increased by as much as 72% in the wake of state-level anti-transgender laws[35]. Feelings of anxiety, depression, and isolation have increased. Instead of substituting pinkwashing for genuine change, companies are moving in the opposite direction. For example, Meta dismantled its Hateful Conduct Policy, allowing for greater abuse of LGBTQIA+ identifying people online[36]. This is particularly impactful because removing safeguards for the LGBTQIA+ community reduces online representation in two key ways. First, members of the LGBTQIA+ community will be forced off social media platforms because of bullying, harassment, and intolerance. Second, people will begin to self-censor their identities on social media to avoid abuse, effectively removing representation and the perception of resistance via a social chilling effect. The decline of pinkwashing in America has not led to genuine support, but has instead given rise to explicitly harmful corporate practices. These harmful practices, in turn, decrease representation further, entrenching exclusionary belief systems and reducing community support. 

​

          Global Shifts Away From Pinkwashing

​

          America is a global economic powerhouse; reducing corporate pinkwashing practices in America leads to reductions globally, because American multinational corporations extend these policies abroad. While in America, a combination of government policy and shifting public opinion is leading to explicitly harmful practices for the LGBTQIA+ community in the wake of declining pinkwashing, other nations will see different results based on three key factors: public support for the LGBTQIA+ community, government policy surrounding the LGBTQIA+ community, and the success of American influence on corporate policies abroad. 

​

          First, countries have varied levels of public support for the LGBTQIA+ community. Reported LGBTQIA+ hate crimes in the UK have increased from 18,596 in 2021 to 22,839 in 2024[37]. In the Ipsos LGBT+ 2025 Pride Report, 45% of Türkiye’s population opposed LGBT people being open about their sexual orientation/gender identity—the largest percent of any nation surveyed. This opposition grew by 13% from 2021[38]. Spain, Sweden, Italy, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, and Hungary all saw varying levels of reduced support for acceptance of sexual orientation/gender identity[39]. Poland saw the highest 2024 to 2025 decrease out of the 26 nations surveyed at an 11% reduction[40]. Declining support is threatening the security of LGBTQIA+ people in Europe; new highs of violence and harassment are being reached[41].

​

          Second, government policy can support the LGBTQIA+ community by encouraging companies to materially support LGBTQIA+ causes as they move away from pinkwashing, or harm the LGBTQIA+ community by passing legislation that delegitimizes LGBTQIA+ identities. In October 2025, Spain required stronger corporate protection of LGBTQIA+ workers, and instructed companies to implement anti-bias training, which is in line with DEI values[42]. Nations that continue to enshrine these policies into law and pressure their corporations to maintain genuine support have the potential to eliminate the harmful effects of both pinkwashing and its abandonment, moving not, as in the US, to entrench harmful practices, but instead toward truly beneficial support. Yet, in both Italy and Hungary, right-wing parties in control are reducing representation and equality of LGBTQIA+ individuals[43]. 

​

          Third, the U.S. government is attempting to influence global corporate policy away from support for the LGBTQIA+ community—particularly in Europe. For example, the United States is attempting to reduce European corporations’ DEI practices by threatening a reduction in business with French, Belgian, Italian, Spanish, and Eastern European companies who continue their initiatives[44]. European governments have generally admonished U.S. attempts to alter national business practices, but the United States may begin a policy of only accepting contracts with European countries on the condition that DEI practices are prohibited[45]. Companies with large presences in American and European markets are more likely to acquiesce to these demands. Some already have. The Danish-owned LEGO group removed its DEI and LGBTQ+ commitments from its 2024 sustainability statements[46]. British Rolls-Royce (now a subsidiary of the German BMW AG) removed its DEI inclusion networks due to pressure from the Trump Administration[47]. Similarly, British pharma group GSK removed its mentions of diversity[48]. 

​

          If governments can withstand American pressure to reduce their support for the LGBTQIA+ community, then there is a greater chance that the removal of pinkwashing will come with genuinely beneficial support by corporations. This, along with current domestic policy trends and public support, will determine if beneficial or harmful policies will replace pinkwashing in the corporate landscape. 

 

          Conclusion

​

          Globally, the response to pinkwashing is clear: consumers have become aware of its hypocrisy, and companies are actively incentivised to move away from the practice. In America, corporations moving away from pinkwashing commonly double-down with reduced commitments to the LGBTQIA+ community and diminished DEI practices that previously benefitted the LGBTQIA+ community. Through executive, legislative, and judicial means, private corporations are incentivized to follow the lead of the federal government in adjusting their commitments to the LGBTQIA+ community. The impact will be devastating: access to healthcare will be lost, acceptance of queerness as a societal norm will continue to decline, and consequently, violence and harassment against members of the LGBTQIA+ community will increase. Some corporations will continue their LGBTQIA+ supporting policies. Furthermore, state-level decision-making can reduce the impact of corporations shying away from active support. Multiple states are utilizing the judicial system to challenge President Trump’s executive orders restricting access to gender-affirming care[49]. If these efforts are successful, then members of the LGBTQIA+ community will directly benefit. Moreover, corporations will feel less pressured to concede to federal demands. 

​

          Globally, there is a mixed response to the US government and American corporations  replacing pinkwashing with harmful rollbacks in supportive policies. Based on public support for the LGBTQIA+ community, domestic policy trends related to the LGBTQIA+ community, and the influence of American policy on individual nations, each country’s corporate landscape will see different outcomes. If the trend in America is indicative of global corporate policy moving forward, then the global LGBTQIA+ has a very pressing issue to contend with. 

 

Works Cited

[1] Wallace, A., Funders for LGBTQ Issues, & Strength in Numbers. (n.d.). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and Queer Grantmaking by U.S. foundations. In 2019–2020 Resource Tracking Report [Resource Tracking Report]. https://lgbtfunders.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2019-2020-Tracking-Report.pdf

[2] Marcus, E. (2022, March 8). Buying Pride: An analysis of corporate “Double dipping” in LGBTQ+ equality - Harvard Law School | Systemic Justice Project. Harvard Law School | Systemic Justice Project. https://systemicjustice.org/article/buying-pride-an-analysis-of-corporate-double-dipping-in-lgbtq-equality/

[3] Gravity Research Prepare for Pride ‘24. (2024, December 2). Prepare for Pride ’24. Gravity Research. https://www.gravityresearch.com/posts/prepare-for-pride-24/ 

[4] Wolfe, J. (2025, March 26). Companies pull back from pride events as trump targets D.E.I. - The New York Times. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/us/pride-corporate-sponsors-dei.html

[5] Parker, M. (2025, June 4). Trump's DEI Attack Hits UK Businesses as Sponsors Ditch LGBTQ Pride. Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-04/trump-s-dei-attack-hits-uk-businesses-as-sponsors-ditch-lgbtq-pride

[6] Dukes, E. (2025, June 5). Liverpool Pride celebrations cancelled due to “significant” challenges. Liverpool World. https://www.liverpoolworld.uk/news/liverpool-pride-celebrations-cancelled-due-to-significant-challenges-5163108

[7] Lazo, E. A. (2025, June 11). “Trump effect” hits Pride marches in Europe as sponsors pull out. Context by TRF. https://www.context.news/money-power-people/trump-effect-hits-pride-marches-in-europe-as-sponsors-pull-out

[8] Murray, C. (2025b, April 24). 2 in 5 corporations scaling back LGBTQ pride engagement amid Trump administration pressure, survey finds. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/04/24/2-in-5-corporations-scaling-back-lgbtq-pride-engagement-amid-trump-administration-pressure-survey-finds/

[9] The Trevor Project. (2024, July 30). Corporate Partners - Become a supporter of the Trevor Project. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/corporate-partners/

[10] The Trevor Project. (2024b, July 30). Corporate Partners - Become a supporter of the Trevor Project. https://web.archive.org/web/20241226210016/https://www.programs providethetrevorproject.org/corporate-partners/

[11] Atlanta-based LGBTQ groups move forward amid funding changes, Dei rollbacks – wabe. WABE PBS NPR. (2025). https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-based-lgbtq-group-move-forward-amid-funding-changes-dei-rollbacks/

[12] Address before a joint session of the Congress | The American Presidency Project. (2025, March 4). https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-4

[13] The White House. (2025, January 21). Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

[14] The White House. (2025b, January 21). Ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/

[15] Knauer, N. J. (2025). LGBTQ Rights in an Age of Democratic Uncertainty: How to Counter the Politics of Eradication  SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5161951 

[16] Ng, E., Fitzsimmons, T., Kulkarni, M., April, K., Banerje, R., & Muhr, S. L. (2025). The anti-DEI agenda: navigating the impact of Trump’s second term on diversity, equity and inclusion. Equality Diversity and Inclusion an International Journal, 44(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-02-2025-0116 

[17] Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2025, February 26). [APPLE SHOULD GET RID OF DEI RULES, NOT JUST MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEM. DEI WAS A HOAX THAT HAS BEEN]. Truth Social. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114070315739588346

[18] Merken, S. (2025, April 3). Republican-led states demand 20 law firms disclose dei practices | reuters. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-led-states-demand-20-law-firms-disclose-dei-practices-2025-04-03/

[19] Cunningham, G. B., & Cunningham, H. R. (2022). Bias among managers: Its prevalence across a decade and comparison across occupations. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1034712). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1034712

[20] Cox, W. T. L. (2022). Developing scientifically validated bias and diversity trainings that work: empowering agents of change to reduce bias, create inclusion, and promote equity. Management Decision, 61(4), 1038–1061. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-06-2021-0839

[21] Ibid.

[22] Gould, W. A., Kinitz, D. J., Shahidi, F. V., MacEachen, E., Mitchell, C., Venturi, D. C., & Ross, L. E. (2024). Improving LGBT labor market outcomes through laws, workplace policies, and support programs: A scoping review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 22(1), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00918-9

[23] Kelly, M., Carathers, J., & Kade, T. (2020). Beyond tolerance: policies, practices, and ideologies of Queer-Friendly workplaces. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(4), 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00512-3

[24] Stevens, D. S. & U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2025). FEHB Program Carrier Letter. https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/carriers/fehb/2025/2025-01b.pdf

[25] The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. (2025, January 31). Impact of proposed cuts to federal workforce on LGBTQ employees - Williams Institute. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/federal-workforce-cuts-brief/

[26] Van De Grift, T. C., Martens, C., Van Ginneken, L., & Mullender, M. G. (2024). Waiting for transgender care and its effects on health and equality: a mixed-methods population study in the Netherlands. EClinicalMedicine, 73, 102657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102657

[27] Levandowski, B. A., Rietberg-Miller, S., & Walton, B. (2024). Why won’t anyone talk? Challenges naming and addressing tokenism within health and human service agencies serving the LGBTQ+ community. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 31(2), E112–E116. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.000000000000206,5

[28] Ibid.

[29] Blanco-Fernández, V., & Iñigo, A. (2025). From “Pinkwashing” to “Forced Inclusion”: Adolescents’ discourses on LGBTIQ+ representation. Sexuality & Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10469-3

[30] Van Schie, K., & Preuss, S. (2024). How do consumers react to LGBTQ+ activism? Evidence from mobile phone geolocation data. Maandblad Voor Accountancy En Bedrijfseconomie, 98(3), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.5117/mab.98.109769

[31] Ipsos, & Page, B. (2025). IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Smallens, Y. (2025). “They’re ruining people’s lives.” In Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/06/03/theyre-ruining-peoples-lives/bans-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth

[36] Torek, B. (2025, January 15). Meta’s new policies: How they endanger LGBTQ+ communities and our... Human Rights Campaign. https://www.hrc.org/news/metas-new-policies-how-they-endanger-lgbtq-communities-and-our-tips-for-staying-safe-online

[37] Hate crime, England and Wales, year ending March 2024. (2024, October 9). GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024

[38] Ipsos, & Page, B. (2025). IPSOS LGBT+ PRIDE REPORT.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Harassment and violence against LGBTIQ people on the rise. (2024, June 20). European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. https://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2024/harassment-and-violence-against-lgbtiq-people-rise

[42] Lazo, E. A. (2025a, May 23). As Trump rolls back DEI, Spain champions LGBTQ+ workers’ rights. Context by TRF. https://www.context.news/rethinking-the-economy/as-trump-rolls-back-dei-spain-champions-lgbtq-workers-rights

[43] Grahn, M. (2024, May 21). LGBTQ vote can keep far-right forces at bay in the forthcoming EP election. The Loop. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/lgbtq-vote-can-keep-far-right-forces-at-bay-in-ep-election/#:~:text=EP2024%20election%20and%20LGBTQ%20vote,rights%20from%20a%20conservative%20backlash.&text=Will%20an%20organised%20LGBTQ%20electorate,the%20Editors%20of%20The%20Loop

[44] Kassam, A. (2025, March 31). Politicians criticise US efforts to make EU firms reverse diversity initiatives. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/31/politicians-criticise-us-efforts-to-make-eu-firms-reverse-diversity-initiatives

[45] Bracebridge, C. (2025, April 3). European Companies Wrestle with U.S. Government’s Anti-DEI Push | Inside Government Contracts. Inside Government Contracts. https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2025/04/european-companies-wrestle-with-u-s-governments-anti-dei-push/

[46] Christiansen, N. B. & The LEGO Group. (2024). Sustainability Statement. https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/aboutus/assets/blt2a759726033d5b67/LEGO_Group_Sustainability_Statement_2024.pdf

[47] Turvill, W. (2025, May 3). Rolls-Royce joins drive away from DEI amid US diversity backlash. The Sunday Times. https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/rolls-royce-dei-us-diversity-backlash-9hcs2zdrm

[48] Ibid.

[49] Attorney General Bonta files lawsuit against Trump administration’s. (2025, August 29). State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-lawsuit-against-trump-administration%E2%80%99s-unlawful