Recent executive orders (EOs) issued by the federal government, such as Executive Order (EO) 14148, EO 14151, EO 14168, and EO 14173, represent significant policy shifts that greatly impact research, academia, and graduate training in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. These policies center on curbing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, altering federal funding criteria for research, and restructuring legal protections against discrimination. Given that many of these executive actions are subject to judicial and legislative review, their full impact remains uncertain. However, should these policies be enacted and enforced as intended, they could have profound implications for academic institutions, research funding, graduate education, and workforce diversity. To assess the potential consequences, I will analyze the historical policy context, the recent EOs’ modifications, and their implications for I-O psychology.
Preexisting policies and institutional norms before recent executive orders
Before the signing of these EOs, federal policies actively promoted DEIA initiatives across research, higher education, and employment (Desikan et al., Reference Desikan, Carter, Franklin, McKinley, Orme-Zavaleta, Rosenberg and Wagner2023). These policies were reinforced through federal funding structures, legal protections, and hiring practices that aimed to foster inclusivity and equitable representation in academia and the workforce. Various federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Education (DOE), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), were crucial in supporting these policies. Through grant programs like NSF’s ADVANCE, which aimed to increase women’s representation in STEM (NSF, 2020), and NIH’s efforts to reduce racial and socioeconomic disparities (Valantine & Collins, Reference Valantine and Collins2015), federal funding was strategically directed toward improving diversity in scientific fields. Additionally, DOE initiatives like TRIO, McNair Scholars, FAIR, and RENEW provided critical financial support for underrepresented students (EESM, 2024; U.S. Department of Education, 2025b). The goal of these programs was to ensure that students from historically marginalized backgrounds had access to higher education and research opportunities.
Federal hiring policies also emphasized diversity through affirmative action mandates within government agencies and federally funded institutions beginning with EO 11246 (1965), which required federal contractors to implement policies to ensure equal employment opportunities for minorities and women. The Obama administration expanded these efforts under Executive Order No. 13583 (2011), directing federal agencies to develop strategic DEIA recruitment and retention initiatives. Additionally, the EEOC actively enforced antidiscrimination laws to ensure employers complied with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited workplace discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and sexual orientation (Civil Rights Act, 1964).
Higher education institutions also embraced DEIA policies, mainly through affirmative action in admissions and faculty hiring. The Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld race-conscious admissions policies, reinforcing efforts to increase diverse representation among students and faculty in federally funded institutions. Additionally, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provided protections against gender-based discrimination to ensure equal educational opportunities regardless of gender identity. The DOE’s Office for Civil Rights was responsible for monitoring compliance with these antidiscrimination laws and enforcing campus policies that promoted a safe and inclusive learning environment (U.S. Department of Education, 2025a).
In contrast to the current administration’s executive actions, previous policies under EO 14091 (2023) and EO 13895 (2021) sought to institutionalize DEIA efforts across federal systems. EO 13895 (2021), signed by President Biden, directed federal agencies to advance racial equity and improve access to federal resources for historically marginalized communities. Building on this, EO 14091 (2023) further established a permanent government-wide framework for integrating equity into policy decisions. These initiatives established DEIA as a cornerstone of academic funding and employment by prioritizing equitable access to opportunities and expanding protections against discrimination (NSF, 2023). However, with the introduction of the new EOs, many of these policies have been reversed or modified, signaling a pivot away from institutional DEIA commitments (Exec. Order No. 14148, 2025). This shift suggests a restructuring of the current practices in research, education, and employment in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. The following sections will explore the key provisions of these EOs and their potential implications for I-O psychology research and graduate training.
Key modifications introduced by the new executive orders
Although longstanding federal policies established a foundation for DEIA in research, education, and employment, the recent EOs signed by President Trump mark a significant departure from these efforts. The first EO impacting DEIA is Executive Order No. 14151 (2025), titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which terminates all DEIA-related mandates, programs, and hiring preferences in federal agencies. This EO has also been extended to the private sector, encouraging alignment with the Trump administration regarding DEIA-focused roles (Riccard, Reference Riccard2025) and leading to widespread job eliminations (Harper, Reference Harper2025). The NSF has also introduced a flagged-word system to scrutinize proposals that use terms like “diversity,” “inclusive,” “race,” “minority,” and “disability,” creating barriers for DEIA-related research (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Dance and Achenbach2025).
Executive Order No. 14168 (2025), titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” further rolls back protections for gender inclusivity in federal programs. In response, the EEOC has deprioritized sex-based protections by removing gender identity considerations from workplace policies and eliminating gender-inclusive language from official forms and communications (U.S. EEOC, 2025). Transgender protections have also been scaled back with the EEOC’s request for the dismissal of pending cases investigating transgender employment discrimination (NPR, 2025). Furthermore, this expands the NSF’s flagged-word review process to studies that include flagged terms like “LGBT,” “women,” “sexual preferences,” “social justice,” and “gender” (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Dance and Achenbach2025). Additionally, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid forms have removed nonbinary and “prefer not to answer” options, reversing previous efforts to acknowledge gender diversity in federal education funding (Federal Student Aid, 2025). Collectively, these modifications significantly depart from previous policies that sought to protect gender diversity and uphold nondiscriminatory research practices.
Executive Order No. 14173 (2025), titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” further dismantles DEIA-related policies by eliminating federal incentives for diversity in hiring. This order prohibits federal contracts from requiring DEIA compliance, allowing contractors to disregard diversity goals in employment decisions. Additionally, it revokes affirmative action in federal contracting and government hiring whic rolls back decades of efforts to increase representation for historically marginalized groups (Exec. Order No. 14173, 2025). In addition to job elimination, this policy in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) has been extended to prohibit educational institutions from using DEIA criteria in hiring, student aid, or campus programming (Friedfel et al., Reference Friedfel, Khetarpal, Ashley and Ahrens2025). Perhaps most notably, the order partially rescinds Executive Order 11246 (1965), which mandated federal contractors to implement equal opportunity policies in hiring. By overturning these measures, EO 14173 (2025) shifts the federal government’s approach away from diversity-driven hiring initiatives and toward what it frames as a "merit-based" system, effectively undoing longstanding policies that aimed to counteract systemic inequities in employment and federal contracting. A summary of all the EOs mentioned can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Executive Orders
Note. This table summarizes key executive orders impacting federal policies on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
Implications for I-O psychology research and graduate training
The enactment of these EOs has far-reaching and potentially detrimental consequences for I-O psychology research, graduate training, and workforce development. These policy changes place new limitations on federally funded DEIA-related studies, disrupt institutional norms that have historically promoted DEIA in academia, and alter the financial and professional opportunities available for scholars in I-O psychology. The following section will examine the implications of these EOs in greater depth, highlighting the key domains most affected by these changes.
Impact on research funding
One major consequence of these EOs is the direct restriction of federally funded research that examines DEIA-related workplace issues. These policies restrict funding for DEIA-related studies, which will have significant implications for research output and the career development of scholars within I-O psychology (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Dance and Achenbach2025). The NSF’s flagged-word system, which targets terms like “race,” “gender,” and “disability,” makes it increasingly difficult for I-O psychology scholars to secure funding for workplace diversity research. This not only hampers knowledge production but also weakens the scientific foundation for improving workplace well-being, motivation, and fairness. Researchers may alter terminology or pivot their focus, ultimately leading to a gap in evidence-based solutions for workplace DEIA challenges.
Impact on career development
These policies also impact the career development of scholars specializing in workplace DEIA research. Reduced access to federal grants would restrict opportunities for graduate research assistantships, postdoctoral fellowships, and startup research funds. Such limitations may hinder professional development, constrain mentorship opportunities, and suppress intellectual diversity. Additionally, scholars may struggle to secure academic placements or maintain research continuity due to a lack of financial support. Academic institutions may discourage DEIA-related research, further marginalizing scholars and reducing submissions to key I-O conferences and journals.
Disruption of longitudinal research
Another repercussion of these EOs is the disruption of longitudinal and applied research in I-O psychology. Large-scale, multiyear studies focusing on issues related to DEIA and its effectiveness risk early termination due to funding cuts. Without financial support, studies investigating topics like bias in artificial intelligence hiring tools, microaggressions in corporate settings, and barriers to workplace advancement for underrepresented employees may be ceased, leading to substantial gaps in knowledge. This disruption extends to public–private partnerships as federal agencies have historically partnered with I-O psychology researchers to conduct large-scale studies on workplace equity and leadership diversity (Nebeker, Reference Nebeker and Greenberg2013). However, the prohibitions on federal contracts enforcing DEIA initiatives threaten these partnerships, which would further weaken our knowledge of inclusive hiring and workforce policies (Exec. Order No. 14173, 2025).
Changes to graduate training
In addition to influencing research, the effects of these EOs extend to graduate training and curriculum. Many I-O psychology programs incorporate DEIA-focused coursework to prepare students for careers that require expertise in diversity and inclusion. However, universities may face pressure to reduce or eliminate such courses to align with federal policies (Friedfel et al., Reference Friedfel, Khetarpal, Ashley and Ahrens2025). In response, programs may reduce instruction on topics such as bias mitigation, inclusive leadership, and antidiscrimination strategies. Such curricular shifts diminish the field’s capacity to address occupational stress, workplace climate, and identity-based barriers to motivation and performance. This could result in a generation of I-O psychologists who lack adequate training and are ill-equipped to develop informed, evidence-based workforce solutions. These circular reductions may also diminish students’ sense of belonging, particularly for those from marginalized groups, by removing inclusive frameworks that validate their identities and lived experiences in organizational contexts. A diminished sense of inclusion may reduce engagement, lower academic motivation, and contribute to attrition among students who no longer feel represented within the field of I-O psychology.
Effects on research mentorship and institutional support
These EOs also impact research mentorship as faculty specializing in workplace DEIA research may lose institutional funding, tenure-track opportunities, or administrative support. This would make it increasingly difficult for faculty to continue their work and mentor students interested in these areas. As funding and faculty support diminish, fewer graduate students will be able to pursue DEIA-related projects, which would limit the development and number of scholars addressing workplace equity. The loss of mentorship and funding would significantly restrict I-O psychology’s ability to inform inclusive organizational practices.
Reduction in financial support for graduate students
Graduate students from marginalized backgrounds may face disproportionate setbacks under these policies. The elimination of DEIA-based student aid and fellowships reduces access to I-O programs (Friedfel et al., Reference Friedfel, Khetarpal, Ashley and Ahrens2025). Programs like TRIO, McNair Scholars (U.S. Department of Education, 2025b), and NSF fellowships (NSF, 2020) may be defunded or restructured, threatening critical educational pathways for underrepresented students. Without these resources, I-O psychology graduate cohorts could become less diverse, diminishing minority perspectives in research and workforce development. The lack of support may leave historically underrepresented students feeling isolated, limiting their motivation to pursue careers in I-O psychology. The decline in financial aid also has long-term consequences for career trajectories. Without accessible funding and research opportunities, many students may have to leave academia or pursue less research-intensive paths, leading to decreased faculty diversity. A less diverse pool of scholars weakens I-O psychology’s ability to develop culturally informed workplace policies and interventions, which in turn impacts inclusive hiring and leadership strategies. Compounding this issue, institutional DEIA support systems that provide mentorship, career guidance, and professional development for marginalized students are also at risk (Friedfel et al., Reference Friedfel, Khetarpal, Ashley and Ahrens2025). Mandated job eliminations in DEIA-focused positions may lead to the closure or reduction of these offices (Exec. Order No. 14151, 2025). Student organizations centered on workplace equity research and professional development may struggle to function without institutional backing, restricting access to networking and mentorship opportunities.
Faculty retention and recruitment challenges
These policy shifts may also create barriers to faculty retention and recruitment, further eroding diversity within academic institutions. DEIA-focused scholars may face increasing institutional pressure to shift their research focus or risk losing funding and professional advancement opportunities. In response, some faculty members may leave academia for positions where DEIA research and training are still prioritized, whereas others may shift their research focus to align with these EOs. Additionally, as universities struggle to attract diverse faculty, the representation of historically underrepresented scholars in leadership positions may decline, reinforcing institutional barriers to diversity in research, education, and workforce development. A lack of diverse faculty may also reduce graduate students’ sense of belonging in academic programs. When students do not see their identities reflected in the faculty, it could hinder their engagement, academic persistence, and overall satisfaction with the field.
Conclusion
Ultimately, these policy changes weaken graduate education and training in I-O psychology, making it more difficult for students and faculty to conduct DEIA-focused research, receive financial support, and contribute to organizational policies that foster workplace equity. By reducing academic freedom, discouraging diversity-focused mentorship, and limiting student access to financial aid and institutional support, these EOs threaten to fundamentally reshape the next generation of I-O psychologists, restricting their ability to address workplace disparities and advance inclusive workforce practices.
Open access
