Diversity · Equity · Inclusion · Accessibility
This is a public witness account of what the elimination of DEIA felt like inside the federal workplace through an autoethnographic lens. It combines lived experience, documented policy change, and qualitative inquiry to show how institutional erasure is experienced by the people inside it.
Diversity · Equity · Inclusion · Accessibility
This study employs an autoethnographic methodology to explore the personal and professional implications of the federal government's elimination of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) initiatives.
I chose autoethnography as the methodology for this research because it allows me to critically examine and articulate the personal and professional impact of the elimination of DEIA initiatives in my federal workplace. As a veteran, doctoral student, and a federal employee directly affected by these changes, my lived experience provides a unique and valuable perspective for exploring the intersection of organizational policy, identity, and belonging. Autoethnography offers the tools necessary to situate my narrative within broader social, political, and cultural contexts while acknowledging the power dynamics and structural shifts that shape my experiences.
This method enables me to move beyond detached observation by embracing vulnerability and reflexivity as sources of insight. By grounding the research in my own story, I aim to offer my observed and lived experience on the often-silenced consequences of dismantling DEIA efforts while contributing to a understanding of how institutional decisions may affect individual lives.
This methodology was chosen to reach my target audience of federal employees and the public, because it humanizes the often abstract or politicized discussions surrounding DEIA by presenting a personal, relatable narrative grounded in shared professional realities and experiences. Many federal employees are navigating similar institutional shifts, and by candidly sharing my lived experience, I aim to create a mirror through which others can reflect on their own experiences with belonging, identity, and professional purpose. This approach fosters empathy, encourages dialogue, and challenges the prevailing assumption that DEIA initiatives are peripheral rather than essential to organizational health.
The desired impact is twofold: first, to validate and amplify the often-unspoken emotional and professional toll that eliminating DEIA initiatives can have on employees; and second, to influence organizational leaders and policymakers by demonstrating — in a compelling, narrative-driven way — the real human cost of these decisions. Ultimately, I hope this research contributes to a broader understanding of why DEIA matters in the federal workplace and inspires renewed commitment to inclusive and equitable practices. It is particularly well-suited for examining the intersection of personal experience and broader sociopolitical structures, such as federal policymaking.
In what ways did the elimination of DEIA initiatives under Executive Order 14151 affect my sense of morale and personal belonging as a federal employee during its first year of implementation?
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1).
Autoethnography is a qualitative research method that combines autobiographical reflection with cultural analysis and interpretation (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011). It sits at the intersection of autobiography and ethnography — the personal story told in a way that reaches outward toward shared meaning.
It is particularly well-suited for examining the intersection of personal experience and broader sociopolitical structures, such as federal policymaking. Where traditional social science methods seek to minimize the researcher's subjectivity, autoethnography treats that subjectivity as a form of evidence — one that can illuminate dimensions of social life that objective methods cannot reach.
In an autoethnography, the first-person voice is not a stylistic choice but an epistemological claim: I was there. My experience is a form of evidence. The personal is cultural. The researcher moves between personal narrative and cultural analysis, using specific scenes, moments, and sensations to illuminate systemic patterns that would otherwise remain abstract.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1).
This website presents an ongoing autoethnographic research project examining the impact of Executive Order 14151 and the resulting elimination of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) initiatives within the federal government. Through personal narrative and analysis, this project explores how these policy changes affect workplace culture, professional identity, and lived experiences within federal spaces.
In addition to sharing my research, this platform serves as a space to gather feedback, perspectives, and experiences from federal employees and the broader public directly or indirectly affected by this executive order. By engaging a broader community, this project aims to deepen understanding and contribute to meaningful dialogue around the implications of these changes.
To explore my research question through autoethnography, I will primarily rely on qualitative, narrative-based data drawn from my own lived experiences within the workplace. This includes the following sources:
By using Organizational Belonging Theory, I can connect individual experiences with broader organizational policies. The theory allows me to consider how the elimination of DEIA affects not only the individual but also the collective experience of the workforce. Further, it provides a context for personal narratives, helping to frame stories about the impact of DEIA cuts.
This theory allows me to articulate how the absence of inclusionary practices influences my own sense of belonging, offering readers a nuanced understanding of what it means to feel "at home" or "excluded" within an institution like the federal government.
My positionality as an African American male with over 15 years of experience in the federal government shaped both how I experienced and interpreted the elimination of DEIA initiatives. My race and gender likely influenced how included or vulnerable I felt, while my role affected my level of awareness and the impact of these changes. As a member of a historically underrepresented group, I experienced this shift as a loss of recognition, support, and advocacy, which intensified my emotional response. Overall, these aspects of my positionality influenced my sense of belonging, perceptions of fairness, and how I made meaning of the elimination of DEIA initiatives.
Some employees may interpret the removal of DEIA initiatives differently, seeing it as a shift toward neutrality or merit-based practices, which suggests that perceptions of belonging and fairness can differ depending on individual perspectives and identities. It is also possible that my emotional responses reflect an increased awareness of organizational change rather than a direct result of the policy itself, meaning the shift may have brought existing issues — such as communication gaps or trust concerns — more clearly into focus.
Marki D. Settles, MBA, PMP is a United States Navy Veteran and Senior Contracting Officer within the federal government, where he has served with distinction for over 15 years. He is currently a Doctoral candidate in Public Administration at the University of Baltimore. Mr. Settles earned his Bachelor of Science in Business Management from Hampton University, graduating Magna Cum Laude, and his Master of Business Administration from Averett University. He holds a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification and further holds professional certificates from Cornell University in the Psychology of Leadership and from Harvard University in Leadership Communications. His research interests center on examining the implications of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Acceptance in the workplace — and how organizational policies in this space shape employee morale and sense of belonging.
Professional Memberships & Affiliations
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14151, directing all federal agencies to eliminate their DEIA practices, initiatives, and programs (The White House, 2025). This executive order aimed at the reversal of President Biden's Executive Order 13985, "Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government." It was the position of President Trump that Executive Order 13985 was illegal and demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.
By direction of President Trump, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — was charged with coordinating the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and DEIA mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government (The White House, 2025). All of this was to be implemented within 60 days of Executive Order 14151, with progress monitored and tracked across agencies and departments to identify potential areas for additional Presidential or legislative action in pursuit of equal dignity and respect.
The Executive Order extended beyond federal employees to include contractors who provided DEIA training; federal grantees who received funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or "environmental justice" programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021; and any agency or department DEI, DEIA, or "environmental justice" positions, committees, programs, services, activities, budgets, and expenditures in existence on November 4, 2024 (The White House, 2025).
"We did not lose our programs all at once. We lost them policy by policy, word by word — until the infrastructure that made belonging possible had been quietly, officially dismantled."
This website presents an autoethnography of my experience as a federal employee, veteran, and minority navigating the lived consequences of that elimination. It details my personal journey through the profound professional and emotional repercussions of the removal of DEIA initiatives — through an autoethnographic lens that explores how the absence of structured DEIA policies has deeply affected my workplace morale and sense of belonging.
The removal of these programs not only marked a shift in institutional priorities but also fortified systemic barriers — a concerning trend that disproportionately impacts underrepresented employees. My narrative aims to bring to light the pivotal role of DEIA in nurturing fair work environments and to underscore the far-reaching effects of its removal on both individual and organizational well-being. This reflection is a significant contribution to the ongoing discourse on equity in public institutions and the pressing need for comprehensive federal workplace policies.
Click each event to expand. A record of what happened, and when.
Autoethnography is not objective. It was never meant to be. It insists that the body of the researcher is a site of knowledge — that what I felt in my chest when the email arrived, what I noticed about the silences in staff meetings, what I did with my hands when I wasn't sure what words I was allowed to use anymore — all of this is data.
I am writing this because I believe that events of this scale, moving this fast, require witnesses who will not look away. The structural story — the executive orders, the legal challenges, the statistics — is important. But it is not sufficient. Someone has to say: I was there. I saw it. It mattered.
"Erasure works by making the erased invisible not only to others but eventually to themselves. The antidote is testimony: insisting on the reality of one's own experience even when the institution denies it."
The work of DEIA in the federal government was imperfect. No autoethnographer who cares about honesty can pretend otherwise. There were failures of implementation, gaps between policy and practice, offices that existed more as performance than substance. These critiques were made from within the community of practitioners — they were arguments for doing the work better, not for abandoning it.
What was eliminated was not a failed experiment. It was an infrastructure of accountability: data systems that tracked disparities, complaint mechanisms for workers experiencing discrimination, training that made managers aware of bias, hiring practices designed to reach communities historically excluded from public service. When you remove accountability infrastructure, you do not eliminate the problems the infrastructure was addressing. You eliminate the ability to see them.
This inquiry will not end with this document. History is still accumulating. Lawsuits are pending. Workers are still fighting, organizing, documenting. I am writing from the middle of it — which is, after all, the only place an autoethnographer can write from.
My autoethnographic journey not only validates the experiences of what some African Americans or minorities face daily in the federal government, but my journey also serves as a catalyst to amplify minoritized voices, precipitate change, and inform other African Americans how to respond to the atrocities of racism especially when it is done indirectly. While in the military, the racial trauma and fatigue I experienced from some leaders motivated me to not be a victim and to advocate for what's right.
After graduating from Hampton University (HU) in 2011, a private historically Black college in Virginia and one of the country's top HBCUs, I began my search for a career in the federal government. Since my mother had worked in the federal government for over 20 years, I looked to her for guidance. While researching her agency, she discovered that they conducted extensive recruiting each year from nearby colleges. However, she noticed that they only recruited from predominantly white institutions (PWIs) in the area and never visited the closest college to their agency (HU), which was less than a 10-minute drive away.
Motivated by this disparity, my mother spoke to leadership about the importance of recruiting from HU. She struggled to understand why they chose to recruit from PWIs located up to 2 hours away while overlooking HU, down the street. One could assume that the composition of the leadership team, which was entirely white male and female, played a role in this decision. This experience highlighted to me why representation matters at all levels of an organization.
Had my mom not advocated for fair and equal recruitment practices, this issue might never have been addressed, and the agency's demographic would have continued to lack diversity. When the current presidential administration insists on eliminating DEIA and hiring solely based on merit, we must question how this plays out when leadership often looks the same.
After discussions, her agency eventually visited HU to hold an informational session, which attracted a significant number of over qualified interested applicants. I attended and, based on my qualifications, was hired into the federal government within months. After some time on the job I soon realized that, based on my GPA and qualifications, I was more qualified than most, if not all of my predecessors from PWIs.
If we truly want to discuss hiring based solely on merit, we must first address the issue of diversity. Had my mother not advocated for her agency to recruit from an HBCU, I might not be in my current position, holding a senior-level role within the federal government.
To explore the research question through autoethnography, this study primarily relies on qualitative, narrative-based data drawn from my lived experiences within the federal workplace utilizing the sources below:
In what ways did the elimination of DEIA initiatives under Executive Order 14151 affect my sense of morale and personal belonging as a federal employee during its first year of implementation?
I analyzed and interpreted the collected data within an autoethnographic framework using a thematic analysis. This qualitative method allowed me to systematically identify, organize, and interpret patterns of meaning across my reflective journals, observations, workplace documents, and other materials. Thematic analysis was well-suited to autoethnography because it honored the narrative depth and subjectivity of personal experience while allowing for rigorous, replicable interpretation.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). · The White House. (2025). Executive Order 14151.
I collected the data through my personal experiences by writing stories that captured my feelings when Executive Order 14151 was enacted as well as examining memory of key events. As the Executive Order led to policy changes and new updates, I recorded my emotional responses and reflected on how these shifts influenced my morale and sense of belonging. During turning points such as governmental policy updates related to eliminating DEIA programs and initiatives, I paid close attention to my emotions, behaviors, and actions, using reflective journaling to illustrate how the elimination of DEIA impacted me. I analyzed this collection of reflections within an autoethnographic framework, applying a thematic analysis to systematically identify, organize, and interpret patterns across my journals, observations, workplace documents, and related materials. I also tracked trends in keywords and emotional expressions related to my sense of belonging, then cross-referenced these findings with organizational behavior theories. My qualitative data consisted of 24 journal entries, 6 memory work documents, and 16 observational notes that were created from March 7, 2025 to January 7, 2026.
The qualitative data captured in my personal journals, memory work, and observational notes collectively reflected several noticeable observable changes within the workplace environment. These included shifts in workplace communication, as I noticed colleagues pausing or redirecting conversations when DEIA-related topics arose, and the absence of equity, inclusion, or belonging language in emails and official communications. I also observed the discontinuation of employee resource groups, such as Blacks in Government (BIG), along with the lack of recognition for cultural observances such as heritage months.
Additionally, shared spaces no longer reflected cultural awareness or inclusive messaging. I am a proud member of a collegiate Greek letter organization, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated — a fraternal organization that is built upon providing service and uplifting the community. As a means of networking and camaraderie, a group of us from a wide range of experience levels connected within the agency and created a virtual messaging group. Our discussions were primarily focused on networking, sharing resources, and offering mutual support and encouragement. However, following the passage of the Executive Order, the group was ultimately dismantled. From my perspective, this appeared to be influenced by concerns about potential perceived risks associated with DEIA-related engagement.
Furthermore, federal agencies were required to submit lists of all DEIA-related employees and offices. Employees were also asked to report colleagues who they suspected were trying to "disguise" DEIA programs under different names, with warnings of "adverse consequences" for non-compliance. This observation eventually led to employees in positions related to DEIA being reassigned or losing their jobs. This caused public lawsuits to be filed in early 2025 arguing that the executive orders related to ending DEIA were unconstitutional and that the terminations unlawfully targeted employees based on their perceived political affiliation. Some of these challenges resulted in injunctions that paused parts of the executive orders, but ultimately the main goal of eliminating DEIA was enacted (Associated Press, 2025).
Lastly, another example of this workplace shift included federal employees being instructed to remove pronouns from email signatures within a fairly quick deadline — which felt like a subtle but significant step away from previously supported inclusive practices.
Collectively, these observations and the remaining entries of my qualitative data involved a data source comprised of a structured collection of qualitative entries that documented formal organizational communications, visible changes in workplace practices, and shifts in employee engagement and interaction. The data also included my reflexive accounts, which captured my emotional reactions and behavioral responses, allowing for a deeper understanding of how these changes influenced my morale and sense of belonging within the organization.
In response to these shifts in the workplace, I adopted a more cautious approach to communication, reflecting a behavioral shift that paralleled a decline in morale and a diminished sense of belonging within the federal government, which I experienced as a reduction in psychological safety and an increase in emotional discomfort. In meetings and group discussions, I initially observed that fewer employees spoke up, particularly on sensitive topics, and these patterns, combined with formal policy changes, contributed to noticeable shifts in the workplace environment. My approach focused on documenting observable changes and my own responses while avoiding assumptions about colleagues' private thoughts. By capturing visible shifts — such as changes in communication, the removal of DEIA programs, and altered organizational messaging — alongside my emotional and behavioral reactions, I maintained ethical boundaries and methodological rigor, ensuring that my findings were grounded in evidence and self-reflection and allowing for an assessment of credibility and appropriateness.
My key results revealed recurring patterns of emotions and behaviors closely tied to my sense of belonging and morale following the elimination of DEIA initiatives under Executive Order 14151. Analysis of my qualitative data showed consistent keyword trends that reflected themes of loss, uncertainty, and shifting professional identity — all of which affected my morale and sense of belonging.
The identification of patterns and trends within my research was predicated on the systematic recurrence of specific keywords and emotional states across my qualitative data. A theme was formally categorized as a "trend" when it manifested with consistency across all three primary data streams of journal entries, memory work, and observational notes. By analyzing the data across all three sources, I ensured a thematic triangulation, thereby validating that the emergent patterns were deeply embedded within the data rather than isolated occurrences.
I created my qualitative data by using a systematic thematic coding process. Utilizing a line-by-line inductive approach, I analyzed my journal entries, memory work, and observational notes to identify recurring keywords and states of emotion. These elements were cataloged in a codebook consisting of four columns: the identified keyword or emotion, a self-reflexive account of my personal association with the data, the source document (journal entry, memory work, or observational notes), and a frequency metric. Through this iterative tracking, distinct patterns and trends emerged across the qualitative data. Of the 25 words and states of emotion that trended and were identified, the data revealed a high prevalence of negative emotions. The top seven most frequent trends of keywords and states of emotion, in descending order of occurrence, were disheartened, uncertainty, anxiety, fear, anger, isolation, and unfairness.
01 Disheartened · 02 Uncertainty · 03 Anxiety
04 Fear · 05 Anger · 06 Isolation · 07 Unfairness
In just analyzing the top seven keywords and emotional state trends — disheartenment, uncertainty, anxiety, fear, anger, isolation, and unfairness — these collectively illustrate the complex emotional landscape within my lived experience during this period. Feeling disheartened reflects moments of discouragement and loss of motivation that arose from ongoing challenges and setbacks. This sense of discouragement was closely connected to uncertainty about future outcomes and personal direction, which often intensified feelings of anxiety and worry. Fear further compounds these emotions by highlighting concerns about potential negative consequences, judgment, or failure. At the same time, anger emerges as a response to perceived injustices or systemic barriers encountered throughout the experience. These emotions are deepened by feelings of isolation, where I experienced disconnection or a lack of belonging within my environment. Ultimately, the perception of unfairness tied these emotional responses together, reflecting broader issues of inequity or unequal treatment that shape my personal narrative. Together, these interconnected themes reveal how my individual emotional struggles were influenced by larger social and institutional contexts.
My thematic analysis transitioned into a secondary phase of theoretical coding, where the initial keywords and emotional states were synthesized into five overarching themes. These themes were then cross-referenced with established frameworks in organizational behavior through a secondary, five-column analytical matrix. This process involved mapping each emergent theme into one of five theoretical lenses: Social Identity Theory, Organizational Theory, Belongingness Theory, Organizational Climate Theory, or Psychological Theory. For each theoretical alignment, the matrix captured three reflexive dimensions: a narrative of personal connection, a narrative of how it aligns with that theory, and a narrative of how these dynamics influenced my morale and sense of belonging.
By creating the personal connection narrative and a narrative of alignment to each theory, I was able to interpret them from an emotional standpoint and make connections on how they affected my morale and sense of belonging.
The findings of this autoethnographic study indicated that the elimination of DEIA initiatives under Executive Order 14151 had a noticeable impact on my sense of morale and personal belonging during its first year of implementation. Analysis of my qualitative data revealed recurring patterns of emotional responses and workplace behaviors that reflected feelings of uncertainty, diminished belonging, and moral unease. These patterns were not isolated moments but appeared consistently across my reflective journal entries, memory work, and observational notes, suggesting a sustained shift in how I experienced my role as a minority federal employee. The frequency of specific keywords and themes further highlighted how the absence of DEIA structures altered my engagement with my work and my connection to the institution, illustrating the ways in which policy changes translated into personal and professional consequences.
The rapid imposition of workplace changes related to Executive Order 14151 cultivated a climate of apprehension, highlighting the profound reach of policymakers' influence over federal administrative life. "One of the main reasons I joined the federal government was because it was a career of clear advancement potential with explicit DEIA commitments, and with the elimination of these programs, it almost seems as a breach of trust, especially if inclusivity was emphasized during the recruitment of joining as an intern out of college." On a more personal note, I have found memory and story about how I was able to get into the federal government — had my mother not advocated for a sense of diversity within her federal agency, her then management would not have recruited from a local Historically Black College and University (HBCU) and kept recruiting from Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) that were further away. I see friends and family members who work in private sector companies where DEIA is welcomed and embraced with no hesitation and I notice a sense of psychological safety and employee voice that I no longer have as a federal employee — and it's disheartening. Historically, the federal government was regarded as a premier employer for recent college graduates; however, the implementation of this Executive Order is projected to significantly diminish the public sector's organizational attractiveness. Contemporary graduates increasingly prioritize corporate social responsibility and inclusive institutional climates. Consequently, the removal of DEIA frameworks may lead to a substantial decline in recruitment among equity-oriented talent, as the federal workplace may no longer align with the foundational values of the emerging workforce (Turban & Greening, 1997; Ng & Burke, 2005).
Removing DEIA did not just eliminate programs. It altered morale, belonging, identity, and the institution's capacity to recognize inequity.
The emotional patterns identified in this study raise important questions about their potential prevalence among other federal employees, indicating a need for future research to determine whether these dynamics are more widely shared. Consequently, the evidence indicates that the dismantling of DEIA frameworks may produce a net negative impact, undermining the structural integrity and inclusive climate of federal institutions. The data also may suggest that the elimination of DEIA initiatives generates substantial systemic disadvantages that outweigh perceived benefits, ultimately exerting a detrimental effect on the federal workplace and employee morale.
The removal of DEIA initiatives shifted the organizational climate from inclusive to compliance-focused, where I felt less empowered to express concerns or identities. DEIA initiatives often foster inclusive climates where employees feel respected and socially connected, and this seemed now non-existent. It is my opinion that the removal of DEIA has since reduced opportunities for connection, dialogue, and validation, and the feeling of belonging feels diminished. This kind of workplace environment — where it is perceived to be biased or contain unfair treatment — will only decrease morale, productivity, and potentially increase turnover of employees leaving the federal government.
Ultimately, the findings of this research suggest that since the implementation of the Executive Order, I have experienced lower morale and a loss of sense of belonging among other negative emotions. These data points reflect an emerging climate of emotional precarity that may resonate across the broader federal workforce. Although these patterns are grounded in an autoethnographic perspective, they suggest broader organizational dynamics that warrant future research to determine the extent to which these experiences are reflected across the federal workforce. Such negative affective states carry profound implications for federal personnel, particularly those from marginalized or minority backgrounds, for whom the dismantling of inclusive frameworks may be experienced as a withdrawal of institutional support and psychological safety.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). · Ng, E. S. W., & Burke, R. J. (2005).
The recurring emotional states of disheartenment, uncertainty, anxiety, fear, anger, isolation, and unfairness collectively suggested a decline in my morale, psychological safety, and sense of belonging following the elimination of DEIA initiatives. These patterns indicate that changes in organizational policies can significantly influence employees' emotional well-being and perceptions of inclusion. Existing research supports this interpretation, showing that when employees perceive their workplace as inclusive and equitable, they experience greater job satisfaction, engagement, and trust in leadership; conversely, weakened inclusion efforts can lead to disengagement and feelings of exclusion (Roberson, 2019).
This relates to Organizational Climate Theory, which suggests that formal policies, practices, and workplace norms shape employees' perceptions of support, fairness, and inclusion, which in turn affect morale, engagement, and sense of belonging (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). These findings suggest that removing policies designed to promote equity and inclusion can create a climate perceived as unsupportive, negatively impacting employees' emotional experiences and overall connection to the organization.
I experienced my morale being lowered and my sense of belonging being diminished. These findings suggest that organizational policies about inclusion are not neutral — they fundamentally shape employees' emotional experience and psychological connection to their workplace. They show that when structures supporting inclusion and equity are removed, employees may feel less valued, less secure in their social identity within the organization, and more emotionally strained. This aligns with existing research indicating that perceptions of workplace inclusion and equity are positively associated with feelings of belonging, engagement, and motivation, while their absence corresponds with disengagement and emotional distress (Brown et al., 2025).
These findings also resonate with Social Identity Theory, which states that individuals derive part of their identity and self-esteem from their membership in social groups. When organizational environments affirm diverse identities and equitable treatment, employees are more likely to experience a sense of belonging and psychological safety. Removing DEIA can therefore weaken that affirmation, leading to identity threat and reduced organizational attachment. This further suggests that macro-level policy changes can influence micro-level social identity processes, affecting both emotional well-being and workplace dynamics.
The consistent link in my data between the elimination of DEIA initiatives and lowered morale, diminished sense of belonging, and feelings of unfairness suggests that organizational inequities may also manifest in processes such as hiring and promotion. When structures designed to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion are removed, decision-making processes can unintentionally favor dominant groups, reduce transparency, or undermine equitable access to opportunities, leading employees to perceive the workplace as unfair. This aligns with Organizational Theory, which emphasizes that formal policies, procedures, and organizational structures shape behavior, influence perceptions of fairness, and affect employee outcomes such as trust, engagement, and commitment (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Roberson, Q. M. (2019). · Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64. · Brown et al. (2025). · Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations.
The conclusions I drew from my findings stem from my five overarching themes.
When DEIA programs were eliminated — more specifically BIG — as a member and federal employee from a historically underrepresented group, I felt as though my identity was lessened and no longer recognized or supported by the federal government. The elimination of this DEIA initiative and others did not only alter formal programs but also influenced everyday interactions, communication patterns, and perceptions of psychological safety within the workplace.
This finding contributes to the broader field by showing how the elimination of DEIA initiatives can affect employees beyond formal programs, influencing identity recognition, workplace interactions, and perceptions of psychological safety. It provides a lived-experience perspective that demonstrates how employees from historically underrepresented groups may interpret the removal of such initiatives as a loss of organizational support and recognition. Additionally, the finding highlights the symbolic role DEIA initiatives may play in signaling organizational values, helping explain how policy changes can shape workplace culture, trust, and sense of belonging.
Eliminating DEIA initiatives such as equitable promotion frameworks or bias-mitigation training has led to a perception that advancement processes are less fair or more opaque.
This finding contributes to the broader field of knowledge by illustrating how the removal of DEIA initiatives can shape employees' perceptions of fairness and transparency in organizational advancement processes. It reinforces existing organizational behavior research suggesting that equitable promotion systems and bias-mitigation efforts play an important role in fostering trust in workplace decision-making. Additionally, the finding provides qualitative insight into how policy changes affecting DEIA initiatives may influence employees' interpretations of organizational justice, which can ultimately impact morale, engagement, and confidence in career advancement opportunities.
DEIA initiatives often foster inclusive climates where employees feel respected and socially connected. The removal has since reduced opportunities for connection, dialogue, and validation. When DEIA initiatives were removed, the change communicated a shift in organizational priorities that affected how I interpreted my place within the federal government. This shift manifested not only emotionally but also behaviorally, as evidenced by increased caution in workplace dialogue, reduced willingness to express perspectives, and heightened awareness of identity within the professional environment.
This finding contributes to the broader field of knowledge by demonstrating how DEIA initiatives function not only as formal programs but also as mechanisms that support inclusive organizational climates and employee connection. It provides qualitative evidence that the removal of these initiatives can influence how employees interpret organizational priorities, which may affect their sense of belonging, willingness to engage in open dialogue, and comfort expressing perspectives at work.
The removal of DEIA initiatives shifted the organizational climate from inclusive to compliance-focused, where I feel less empowered to express concerns or identities. This proved that workplace belonging is a dynamic and fragile construct that can be significantly influenced by institutional signals regarding inclusion and equity.
This finding contributes to the broader field of knowledge by demonstrating how organizational climate can shift in response to institutional signals about inclusion and equity. It highlights that DEIA initiatives play a role not only in programmatic outcomes but also in shaping employees' perceptions of empowerment, voice, and identity expression within the workplace. By illustrating that belonging can be dynamic and fragile, the finding deepens scholarly understanding of how policy or organizational changes influence psychological safety, organizational climate, and employees' sense of belonging over time.
Individuals who were initially attracted to federal service because of its stated commitment to DEIA may perceive the elimination of these initiatives as a shift away from the values that influenced their decision to join. The current policymaker's decision to eliminate DEIA initiatives represented a sharp departure from the direction established by multiple previous policymakers. This reversal led me to interpret the policy change not simply as a routine administrative adjustment but as one that appeared to be driven more by ideological or personal perspectives than by a continuation of established federal workforce development priorities. As a result, the federal government may become less appealing to prospective employees who prioritize inclusive workplace environments and value organizational commitments to DEIA principles.
This finding contributes to the broader field of knowledge by highlighting how DEIA initiatives serve not only as internal programs but also as external signals that shape the organization's attractiveness to potential employees. It demonstrates that the presence or removal of these initiatives can influence recruitment and talent retention, particularly among individuals who prioritize inclusion and equity.
In summary, this research expands existing scholarship by connecting structural policy decisions to the lived realities of employees, illustrating how shifts in organizational priorities can affect morale, belonging, and psychological safety.
Reinforce Inclusive Practices: Policymakers should recognize that DEIA initiatives do more than fulfill compliance — they actively shape employee morale, sense of belonging, and psychological safety. Maintaining or strengthening these programs can foster open dialogue, trust, and engagement, particularly for employees from historically underrepresented groups.
Monitor Organizational Climate: Organizational leaders should regularly assess how changes in DEIA programs affect workplace interactions, communication patterns, and perceptions of fairness. Proactive measures, such as creating safe spaces for employee feedback, can mitigate negative impacts on morale and inclusion.
Psychological Safety Checks: Implement regular surveys or focus groups to assess employees' morale, sense of belonging, comfort in sharing ideas, and perceived fairness in workplace processes.
Sustain DEIA Programs: Policy decisions that eliminate DEIA initiatives can unintentionally signal a shift in organizational priorities, reducing workplace inclusion and employee engagement. Policymakers should weigh these potential impacts before altering or removing programs.
Integrate DEIA Into Organizational Structures: Embedding DEIA principles into promotion frameworks, bias-mitigation practices, and organizational procedures ensures that equity is not reliant solely on standalone programs. This can preserve fairness and inclusion even amid broader policy changes.
Link DEIA to Organizational Goals: Integrate DEIA initiatives into strategic planning and resource allocation, showing that equity, inclusion, and belonging are central to organizational success rather than optional add-ons.
Inclusive Recruitment Standards: Design federal or organizational hiring policies that emphasize inclusion, ensuring that recruitment appeals to diverse candidates and maintains organizational attractiveness.
Examine Lived Experiences: More qualitative and autoethnographic studies are needed to explore how policy or organizational changes like the elimination of DEIA affect employees' morale, psychological safety, sense of belonging, and identity, particularly among underrepresented groups.
Link Macro Policy to Micro Experience: Future research could investigate how high-level policy decisions translate into daily workplace behaviors, communication patterns, and engagement outcomes among employees.
Longitudinal Studies: Tracking the effects of DEIA program changes over time can provide insight into the durability of their impact on morale, retention, and organizational culture. As this study was limited to a 10-month period of analysis, future research could extend the timeframe to examine the long-term impacts of these policy changes and investigate how their effects may vary across different federal agencies.
My autoethnographic research contributes to existing scholarship on organizational belonging by adding depth, context, and lived experience to what is often studied at a broad or quantitative level. While much of the literature on belonging and DEIA focuses on surveys, metrics, or generalized outcomes, my study provides a first-person, process-oriented account of how morale and sense of belonging is disrupted in real time following a policy shift such as the elimination of DEIA in Executive Order 14151. This offers insight into the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral mechanisms — such as unease, withdrawal, or identity strain — that are often invisible in large-scale studies.
My research also contributes by linking macro-level policy change to micro-level experience, showing how structural decisions translate into everyday workplace dynamics. Organizational behavior theory frequently predicts that reduced inclusion and perceived fairness will negatively impact morale and sense of belonging, but autoethnography demonstrates how these effects unfold, evolve over time, and are interpreted by individuals within specific organizational contexts. In this way, my research can help bridge a gap between theory and practice by illustrating the human impact of policy reversals.
Additionally, my study advances scholarship by incorporating a narrative dimension tracking how feelings of belonging shift over time rather than capturing a single moment. This can deepen others' and my understanding of belonging as a dynamic and fragile construct, especially during periods of organizational or political change. Lastly, by foregrounding voice and reflexivity, my research contributes to more inclusive forms of knowledge production, emphasizing that understanding organizational belonging requires not only measuring it but also listening to and theorizing from lived experience.
Like much other existing scholarship, most point toward the embracement of DEIA and suggest it contributes to a healthy work environment. It is not just a matter of social responsibility — it is also a strategic imperative for building a future-ready economy that is innovative, inclusive, and sustainable. Work environments that prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and acceptance show their commitment to social responsibility, which can be attractive to the next generation of workers (Forbes Human Resources Council, 2023).
Current research on workplace DEIA programs consistently shows that these initiatives play a significant role in shaping employee experience, particularly in terms of belonging, engagement, and morale. Studies also indicate that when employees perceive their workplace as inclusive and equitable, they are more likely to feel that their voices are valued, which in turn increases job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and overall performance. Conversely, the absence or weakening of DEIA efforts can contribute to disengagement, reduced trust in leadership, and feelings of exclusion (Roberson, 2019). This current research aligns with the findings of my research in that DEIA initiatives and programs can play a role in one's morale and sense of belonging in the workplace.
Forbes Human Resources Council. (2023). · Roberson, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior.
Numbers cannot capture what was lost. But they can document the scope of what was deliberately dismantled. The following data reflects documented impacts of Executive Order 14151 on the federal workforce and institutional operations through early 2026.
Composition of Total Federal Workforce Exits (2025)
OPM Implementation Cost Breakdown
Actions disproportionately affected women and people of color, with potential implications for an estimated 314,000 LGBTQ employees across federal agencies and contractors.
Data drawn from OPM reports, Pew Research, union filings, congressional testimony, and investigative journalism. Pew Research confirmed the federal workforce shrank by 10% in the first year of the administration.
* Some figures are estimates or represent points-in-time reporting. Full data documentation was withheld from or removed from public record.
The following resources provide additional context, legal guidance, and support for those navigating the impact of DEIA elimination in the federal workplace.
A space for ongoing conversations about DEIA, federal workplace experiences, and the human impact of policy change. Start a new discussion or join an existing one. All posts are public.
Start a New Discussion
Loading discussions…
Have questions about this research, want to share your own experience, or interested in connecting? Reach out using the form below.
"They can remove the language from the websites. They cannot remove the knowledge from our bodies, the relationships from our communities, or the commitment from our lives."
An Autoethnography · 2025 · Federal Workforce, United States
Written in the tradition of qualitative inquiry, critical race theory,
and the long practice of bearing witness.
Counter active when page is hosted online
Mobile Access
Scan the QR code to open this autoethnography on any mobile device. Share it with colleagues, students, or anyone impacted by the elimination of DEIA in the federal workplace.
Scan to access
erasedinplainsight.com
