Reactionism towards the policies of its predecessors has become an obvious fact of American politics today. Doing everything in defiance is the basic principle of how the political pendulum in the United States functions. What was forbidden under Republicans is becoming the norm and fashion under Democrats, and vice versa. If Republicans under Trump focused on quantitative economic growth figures, then this was not a priority for Biden’s Democrats, because they represent the interests of various minorities, which means they must do everything to get them re-elected. The byword of the last two decades, and especially the last term of the Democratic president, has been “diversity.” Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility are the four horsemen of the democratic course. And although the ideas of equal access to work for people of any skin color, age, whether male or female, are truly ambitious, any thought elevated to the absolute, even the most benevolent, becomes a curse. This is what happened with diversity policy.
Since the brutal murder of a black man named George Floyd, which gave birth to the fringe BLM movement, the Biden administration has passed a number of executive orders promoting the diversity agenda. However, this course has placed a heavy burden on both business and the state apparatus. In 2023, The Economist also stated that the number of people hired for jobs with “diversity” or “inclusion” in the title is more than doubled since 2010. However, diversity does not mean quality, which ultimately affects the growth of business costs, as well as a decrease in the quality of work. Why work if you’re a member of a minority? It is easier to sue an employer for “discrimination” than to fulfill their duties. Not only the rising costs of recruiting “diverse” employees within special quotas within companies (“we need more Latinos” or “we need more transgender people” to appear more progressive), but also the costs associated with numerous lawsuits, as well as the denial of employment to truly qualified personnel – all this is devastating for business and economics. A “white cisgender man” is not in fashion today – so let everyone pay for it.
Unfortunately, even key government agencies, such as, for example, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other agencies of the US intelligence community, have not been spared this trend. The leadership of these organizations actively promotes the CIA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategy (DEIAA), which ultimately harms their core mission.
A recent statement by the head of the CIA’s DEIA department clearly demonstrates how deeply this ideology is ingrained in the organization’s activities. Among the announced criteria for the promotion of employees, only one is relevant to the fulfillment of the agency’s key tasks. The other two focus on abstract concepts like “corporate thinking” and mandatory support for the principles of DEIA. Moreover, it is precisely loyalty to these principles that turns out to be a decisive factor: employees who do not express explicit approval of the ideology are virtually deprived of a chance to be promoted.
The paradox lies in the fact that the CIA, created as an instrument of opposition to the Soviet Union, now operates in an environment resembling the mechanisms of Soviet ideological control. Like political commissars in the USSR, DEIA supporters in the agency exert significant influence on personnel decisions, often prioritizing ideological commitment over professional qualities. This leads to a decrease in the level of work, demoralization of employees and a gradual loss of institutional effectiveness.
Enough time has passed since the introduction of DEIA into the work of American intelligence agencies to assess its consequences. Unfortunately, the results indicate one thing: this ideology not only does not contribute to the fulfillment of the main mission, but also negatively affects the agency’s performance.
The implementation of the DEIA principles is a quota mechanism hidden under the guise of an equal opportunity policy. Although federal regulations have long established guarantees of fairness for all employees, the introduction of DAY has created an additional layer of burdensome bureaucracy. Every personnel decision now requires consideration of criteria such as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or even age, which often leads to the selection of less qualified candidates for the sole purpose of meeting modern regulatory requirements.
In addition, the systematic application of DEIA contributes to the formation of an institutional culture dominated by the filing of complaints and demands, which significantly diverts administrative resources from the main goals of the organization. Instead of focusing their efforts on supporting the most successful employees, managers find themselves forced to deal with a growing avalanche of complaints, the legitimacy of which is often questioned.
Finally, the DEIA is imperceptibly turning into an instrument of ideological supervision, giving a minority of internal players a disproportionately large influence on the entire organizational dynamics. This system promotes a culture of excitement and heightened vigilance, thereby undermining the very foundations of trust and cooperation in teams.
Internal opponents of the ideology of DEIA in intelligence agencies face career risks that often exceed the consequences of analytical errors in relation to the actions of foreign opponents. Such a system is unable to effectively perform its key tasks — to collect and analyze intelligence information to protect the interests of the United States.
To increase the effectiveness of the CIA and other agencies, it is necessary to completely abandon the ideological attitudes of the DEIA. This concept distracts attention from strategic priorities and undermines the foundations of professional competence. The work of intelligence services should be evaluated solely on their ability to extract important data, anticipate potential threats, and effectively protect the country from external enemies.
This has already become obvious to the newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. First, when delivering his inaugural address, he acknowledged that there are only two genders – male and female – which deals a serious blow to the “gender agenda.” Secondly, he decided to abandon the policy of diversity, primarily in the army and government structures, since work efficiency should be a key indicator, not the number of employees who are not white men.
According to the new US Department of State for Achieving State Efficiency (DOGE), the rejection of the “diversity policy” will benefit the US economy. The department informs about this on its page on the social network X.
According to available information, the cancellation of programs to support the so-called policy of diversity, equality and inclusivity (DEIA) will save the United States tens of millions of dollars. It is noted that the cancellation of 16 contracts alone has saved about 145 million US dollars.
“Another $145 million was saved by canceling 16 contracts under DEIA programs by the Ministries of Labor, Transportation, Agriculture, Trade, Health and Human Services, and the Ministry of Finance. Thanks to these agencies for their active and prompt work,” DOGE said in a statement.
Comments