Civil Rights Under Siege: Trump’s Second Term Sparks Fears of Decades of Regression
The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term have ignited a fierce debate over the future of civil rights in America. Across federal agencies, diversity initiatives have been eliminated, efforts are underway to roll back key provisions of the Civil Rights Act, and civil rights personnel have faced termination. Critics argue these actions represent an unprecedented assault on decades of progress, threatening to unravel the fabric of equality and justice woven through the Civil Rights Movement.
Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, expressed deep concern, stating that the rapid erosion of civil rights protections is unlike anything she has witnessed in her lifetime. She emphasized the need for continuous vigilance and renewed commitment to safeguarding these hard-won rights.
Trump and his conservative allies, however, frame their actions as a necessary correction to the priorities of the Justice Department, pushing back against what they term a "woke" agenda. They contend that the previous administration neglected crucial enforcement matters, justifying a redirection of resources and a reinterpretation of civil rights laws.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, dismissed accusations of dismantling civil rights work. Instead, he argued that the administration is prioritizing enforcement matters previously overlooked, without specifying what those specific matters are.
Despite these justifications, over 200 lawsuits have been filed challenging Trump’s executive orders and policy changes. Activist groups have also initiated boycotts against businesses perceived to have abandoned diversity initiatives. Yet, even if these challenges prove successful, the administration’s actions have already inflicted significant damage, setting in motion the dismantling of laws designed to protect individuals from discrimination in schools, workplaces, and at the polls. The fear among civil rights advocates is that these changes, if unchallenged, could reverse decades of progress.
Barbara Arnwine, president and founder of Transformative Justice, a civil rights organization, described the administration’s actions as a "full-frontal assault," leaving individuals feeling deeply vulnerable and marginalized. She noted a widespread sense of anger and agitation as people witness their rights being stripped away.
One of the most impactful executive orders issued by Trump eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government. Another mandated federal agencies to recognize only two sexes, male and female, a move seen as targeting the rights and recognition of transgender and non-binary individuals.
More recently, Trump signed an order aimed at repealing or amending provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, asserting that his changes guarantee equality of opportunity, rather than equal outcomes. Critics argue this framing is a deliberate attempt to undermine the Act’s core principles and protections.
Furthermore, the administration has closed civil rights offices within certain federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and terminated the employment of civil rights and DEI personnel. Civil rights cases at the Education Department have also been halted.
Conservatives, particularly at the Department of Justice, view these changes as overdue. Von Spakovsky argued that the agency should pursue discrimination lawsuits regardless of the group affected, including cases involving discrimination against white individuals. He criticized the agency’s alleged failure to adequately pursue such cases.
Von Spakovsky highlighted the president’s executive order, titled "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy," as an effort to address what Trump called the "unlawfulness of disparate-impact liability" within the Civil Rights Act. This legal concept requires a policy or action to be modified if it has a disproportionate negative impact on a particular group, even if that was not the intended outcome.
The administration argues that disparate-impact liability violates the Constitution, federal civil rights laws, and "basic American ideals" by allegedly compelling businesses to consider race to avoid potential legal repercussions. Von Spakovsky claimed that using disparate impact is not a valid way to prove discrimination.
He defended the administration’s actions as a return to the original intent and purpose of civil rights laws, enforcing them as Congress supposedly intended. He insisted this involves a race-neutral application for the laws as they protect everyone, not just specific groups.
Critics, however, perceive Trump’s agenda on civil rights as aligned with Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for overhauling the federal government, including the elimination of agencies like the Education Department.
Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, a civil rights organization, characterized Trump’s executive orders as "Project 2025 on steroids," describing them as devastating and tragic for the nation, as well as an attack on the future.
Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, echoed this sentiment, describing Trump’s first 100 days as "Project 2025 in motion." He implored people not to consider these actions as mere reforms but as deliberate attacks on civil rights, fought for and achieved through immense sacrifice.
South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat and former history teacher, acknowledged that attempts to roll back civil rights protections are not unprecedented. He cited the backlash following Reconstruction as an example of regression after progress.
Goss Graves emphasized that Trump’s agenda extends beyond specific diversity and inclusion programs, aiming to dismantle the entire foundation of the Civil Rights Act.
For veterans of the Civil Rights Movement, witnessing what they perceive as the dismantling of hard-fought civil rights laws has been both disappointing and infuriating. This has spurred them to intensify their efforts to train the next generation of organizers.
Courtland Cox, a veteran of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), stressed the importance of organizing the Black community and other communities. He expressed that he is not surprised by Trump’s actions, given his long-standing intentions.
Judy Richardson, also a SNCC veteran, warned that Trump’s actions extend beyond mere rollbacks of civil rights gains, representing an attack on all Americans and their democratic institutions. She emphasized the need to recognize the far greater danger posed by the current situation compared to the challenges faced during the Civil Rights Movement, to effectively mount a counter-offensive. She believes that without recognizing the full scale of the danger, activists will not be able to adequately protect civil rights.
