JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest bank in the United States, has announced a rebranding of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) program to Diversity, Opportunity, and Inclusion (DOI).

The move comes as the Trump administration intensifies its attack on corporate DEI initiatives, pushing companies to reconsider their approach to diversity efforts.

In a memo to staff, JPMorgan’s Chief Operating Officer, Jenn Piepszak, explained that the bank always understood the “E” in DEI to mean equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. She stated that DOI more accurately reflects the bank’s ongoing approach to growing its business while reaching the most customers and clients.

The decision aligns with a broader shift in corporate America, as many companies have begun reversing, scaling back, or completely eliminating DEI programs in response to increasing political scrutiny.

Trump Administration’s DEI Crackdown

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has signed a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling DEI policies across the federal government and corporate sectors. These measures have banned federal agencies and contractors from funding DEI programs, forcing them to erase references to diversity efforts from their websites. They have also restricted corporate hiring and promotion initiatives that incorporate race or gender considerations while threatening legal action against companies that continue to operate DEI policies deemed discriminatory.

As a result, major corporations are adjusting their policies to avoid potential legal and regulatory battles.

JPMorgan’s New Approach to Diversity

While renaming the initiative, JPMorgan insists it remains committed to diversity in hiring, compensation, and promotions—without implementing quotas or race-based pay incentives. In her memo, Piepszak reassured employees that the bank does not have illegal quotas or pay incentives and would never turn someone away because of their political or religious beliefs, or because of who they are.

The bank also announced that it will scale back diversity training programs, maintaining only what it describes as “high-quality offerings.” Employee resource groups, which serve as internal communities for minority and marginalized employees, will remain but will shift their focus to engagement, cultural celebrations, and education rather than direct advocacy.

Other Major Companies Scaling Back DEI

JPMorgan is not alone in making adjustments. Several high-profile companies have also scaled back or eliminated DEI programs in response to political pressure. Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have reduced their diversity hiring targets following scrutiny from conservative groups and political leaders. Walt Disney Co. has quietly removed references to DEI from its corporate strategy, shifting its focus toward traditional merit-based hiring.

Accenture, a global consulting giant, has announced it will no longer use diversity targets in hiring and promotions, citing Trump’s executive orders. Swiss pharmaceutical companies Novartis and Roche have abandoned certain DEI initiatives over concerns about potential legal risks in the U.S. market. Meta, Facebook’s parent company, has disbanded its DEI team, with reports suggesting the company is distancing itself from DEI-related policies.

This wave of corporate rollbacks signals a shift in corporate America’s approach to diversity policies, as businesses attempt to navigate political pressure while maintaining their commitments to inclusion.

The dismantling of DEI initiatives has sparked criticism from civil rights groups, legal scholars, and corporate leaders, who warn that reducing diversity efforts could expose companies to lawsuits for failing to uphold workplace inclusion policies. Many argue that these rollbacks will discourage minority hiring and promotion opportunities, leading to long-term workforce disparities. Others caution that the removal of structured diversity programs could create a hostile work environment for employees who previously benefited from them.

Despite these concerns, Trump’s administration remains firm in its stance against DEI, claiming that such programs promote discrimination rather than prevent it.

The Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Ibok-Ete Ibas, has announced the release of withheld local government allocations, assuring that necessary steps will be taken to ensure the prompt payment of workers’ salaries.

Speaking during a meeting with Heads of Local Government Administrators in Port Harcourt, Ibas described the gathering as a pivotal moment in the collective effort to restore stability and progress in the state.

He lamented the economic hardship in the Niger Delta, noting that despite the region’s vast natural resources, its people continue to suffer. “This is unacceptable,” he stated, emphasizing the need for transformation and accountability. Expressing concern over the delay in salary payments across local government areas, the administrator acknowledged the struggles of affected workers.

“I feel the pain of the workers,” he said, assuring them that the withheld allocations had been released and that his administration would ensure that salaries were paid without delay. However, he warned that financial accountability would be strictly enforced.

Ibas, a retired vice admiral and former Chief of Naval Staff, directed all local government areas to submit their wage bills, supported by relevant documentation, through the office of the Head of Service. He emphasized that his administration would not tolerate financial recklessness, vowing to scrutinize the handling of public funds and take action against any mismanagement.

He stressed that good governance is not just a slogan but a commitment to changing the negative narrative within the next six months. He further highlighted the importance of collaboration with traditional rulers and security agencies to enhance security at the grassroots level.

“You must take the lead in ensuring security within your domains,” he urged local government administrators.

In response, the President of the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE) and Administrator of Port Harcourt Local Government Area, Clifford Paul, acknowledged the developmental strides made in the state despite political conflicts. He commended the Federal Government for appointing the Sole Administrator, attributing the decision to his competence and leadership ability.

He pledged to support peace and stability while urging the administrator to prioritize workers’ welfare. He explained that local government workers are currently owed two months’ salaries but are hopeful now that the withheld allocations have been released. He encouraged stakeholders to seize this opportunity to rebuild trust and foster unity in the state.

Legal and Constitutional Questions Over Release of Funds

While the announcement may have brought relief to local government workers, it has raised serious legal and constitutional questions. The Supreme Court had ruled that statutory allocations to Rivers State should be withheld because Governor Siminalayi Fubara did not recognize the House of Assembly and did not present the state budget for passage.

President Bola Tinubu has accused Fubara of failing to obey the Supreme Court ruling, despite the governor reportedly writing to the same House to enable him to present the budget. However, rather than allowing the constitutional process to unfold, Tinubu proceeded to suspend both the Governor and the House of Assembly and appointed a Sole Administrator to run the state.

Now, the same withheld allocations are being released to Ibas, a move that legal experts describe as a blatant violation of the court’s order.

Rights lawyer Inibehe Effiong sharply criticized the development, questioning the logic behind withholding allocations due to a lack of House of Assembly recognition, only to release them to a Sole Administrator who has no constitutional basis to appropriate state funds.

“So, the allocations were withheld because there was no House of Assembly or the Governor did not recognize the House and did not present the budget, but you have now suspended both the Governor and the House and proceeded to appoint a Sole Administrator and handed over allocations to the Sole Administrator,” Effiong said.

“How do you reconcile this?” he asked.

“If it was right for the allocations to be withheld because there was no House of Assembly or due to the governor’s refusal to present the budget before the House, on what legal, moral, or logical basis are you releasing the same allocations to a Sole Administrator after suspending the Governor and the House?”

He further pointed out that under Sections 120 and 121 of the Nigerian Constitution, no state funds can be appropriated without a valid Appropriation Law. Since the Sole Administrator has no budget legally passed by a recognized House of Assembly, the release of the withheld allocations raises suspicions of financial mismanagement.

“Is the Sole Administrator a constitutional substitute for the House of Assembly and the Governor?” Effiong queried.

“Which budget will the Sole Administrator now use to appropriate the allocations of Rivers State? State funds and allocations cannot be appropriated without being enabled by an Appropriation Law.”

He concluded that Tinubu’s actions amounted to trampling on Nigeria’s Constitution.

“Tinubu has defecated on the Constitution of Nigeria,” he stated.

Allegations of an Embezzlement Ploy

Beyond the legal and constitutional debates, many Nigerians believe the imposition of a state of emergency and the appointment of a Sole Administrator are calculated moves to enable the embezzlement of Rivers State’s funds. The decision to suspend a sitting governor and an entire legislative assembly, only to place a federal appointee in charge of the state’s finances, has raised red flags.

Rivers State, one of Nigeria’s richest due to its oil revenue, has long been a battleground for political control. With the governor and House of Assembly sidelined, the state’s funds are now in the hands of a federally appointed official with no elected mandate.

The appointment of Ibas, a retired military officer with no prior experience in civilian governance, has further fueled suspicions. Many believe his role is not to provide leadership but to serve as a conduit for the diversion of funds.

Is this shenanigans all about stealing the allocations of Rivers State? Is that what this impunity is all about?” Effiong asked.

Political Implications of The Martial Law

This development has sparked fears that similar takeovers could happen in other states where federal interests are at stake. The move is seen as a dangerous precedent that undermines Nigeria’s federal structure, weakening the power of state governments and centralizing control in Abuja.

“So let me understand it: A minister or ally of the president can wake up any time to engineer chaos and instability in a state and the president’s response will be to illegally remove the state governor to placate his ally,” a social commentator, Olufunmilayo, said. “So someone from the presidency can artificially start chaos in Osun, Oyo, or Kano and next thing their governor is gone. This is the era we are now in, yeah?”