President Donald Trump has escalated his campaign against corporate diversity initiatives, calling on Apple to comply with his executive order to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.

The president’s demand comes despite Apple’s shareholders voting overwhelmingly to keep these initiatives in place, raising questions about whether the tech giant will stand firm or eventually yield under government pressure.

Trump, who has already influenced several major corporations to roll back their DEI commitments, took direct aim at Apple in a post on Truth Social.

The administration has framed these programs as discriminatory, arguing they disadvantage individuals who do not belong to historically marginalized groups. The White House has also signaled that companies failing to comply could face legal action, with Trump suggesting that the Department of Justice (DoJ) could investigate whether such initiatives violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

Apple’s Shareholders Reject Push to End DEI

Apple has long championed diversity initiatives, and this week, its shareholders reaffirmed their support for DEI efforts. At the company’s annual meeting, a proposal titled “Request to Cease DEI Efforts” was overwhelmingly rejected, with 8.84 billion votes against and just 210.45 million in favor.

The proposal, submitted by the conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research, was part of a broader effort to pressure corporations into eliminating DEI programs in response to Trump’s policy stance.

Apple is not the only company facing such pressure. A similar shareholder proposal at Costco’s recent annual meeting was also rejected. However, many major firms, including Google and Meta, have already begun scaling back or eliminating their DEI hiring targets to align with the administration’s directives.

Will Apple Hold Its Ground? 

While Apple has resisted so far, there are growing concerns that the company may eventually cave. CEO Tim Cook has not issued a direct rebuttal to Trump’s demand but told shareholders that “We will continue to create a culture of belonging.” However, Cook also acknowledged that the company may have to make changes to its DEI programs as the legal and political landscape shifts.

Apple’s defiance comes at a delicate time for its relationship with the Trump administration. The company has several high-stakes issues to negotiate with the president, including:

• Tariffs on China: Trump has repeatedly threatened to increase tariffs on Chinese imports, a move that could significantly impact Apple’s supply chain. With many iPhones and other Apple products still manufactured in China, higher tariffs would drive up costs, making Apple particularly vulnerable to policy shifts.
• Encryption Battle: Apple has long resisted government efforts to weaken encryption on its devices, arguing that backdoor access for law enforcement would compromise user privacy. Trump has previously pushed for such access and could use regulatory pressure to force Apple’s hand.

Many analysts believe these issues could give Trump leverage over Apple, forcing the company to choose between protecting its DEI programs or securing more favorable trade and regulatory conditions.

Apple is making a $500 billion investment in US manufacturing over the next four years, which includes building a new factory in Houston and hiring over 20,000 people in the US. This move, announced after Cook’s meeting with Trump, was expected to soften the ground for the company.

A Test Case for Corporate Resistance

While Apple remains defiant for now, its decision is being closely watched as a potential turning point in corporate resistance to government pressure on DEI. Many companies have already scaled back their programs, fearing political backlash or legal consequences. Others, like Target, are now facing lawsuits over the alleged financial risks posed by DEI initiatives.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a federal lawsuit against Target, accusing the retailer of misleading investors about the financial risks of its DEI and Pride Month campaigns. The lawsuit claims that Target’s stock declined due to consumer backlash and that shareholders were not properly informed of these risks—an argument that could set a precedent for similar cases against other companies.

If Apple ultimately surrenders to Trump’s demands, it could trigger a wider retreat from DEI across the corporate world. However, if the company holds firm, it may embolden others to resist as well.

Coin Center, a prominent nonprofit advocating for cryptocurrency policy, has developed a multifaceted legal strategy to counter what it perceives as overreach by U.S. government agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), Treasury Department, and IRS. These strategies focus on defending the rights of software developers and users of open blockchain networks, emphasizing constitutional protections like free speech and privacy. Below is an overview of Coin Center’s legal approaches as of February 28, 2025, based on their public actions and priorities.

Section 6050I Lawsuit (Treasury/IRS): In June 2022, Coin Center filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department challenging the amendment to Section 6050I of the Tax Code, part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This amendment mandates that individuals receiving over $10,000 in cryptocurrency report intrusive personal details (e.g., sender’s name, Social Security number) to the government.

Coin Center argues this constitutes “unconstitutional financial surveillance,” violating the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches) and First Amendment (freedom of association and speech). Although a district court dismissed the case as “unripe” in 2023, a 2024 Sixth Circuit ruling partially reversed this, allowing Coin Center to proceed on its enumerated-powers claim—asserting Congress exceeded its authority. This demonstrates their strategy of pushing constitutional limits through federal courts, potentially aiming for Supreme Court review.

Tornado Cash Sanctions (Treasury/OFAC): Coin Center has challenged the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions on Tornado Cash, a privacy-focused Ethereum mixer. In 2022, they sued Treasury, arguing that sanctioning open-source software (not a person or entity) exceeds OFAC’s authority and infringes on developers’ free speech rights. This case ties into broader efforts to protect code as constitutionally protected expression.

Non-Custodial Developer Protections: Coin Center has prioritized preventing “unjust prosecutions” of non-custodial software developers—those who don’t control user funds—targeted by the DOJ for unlicensed money transmission. Notable cases include the 2024 indictments of Tornado Cash developers (e.g., Roman Storm) and Samourai Wallet developers.

Coin Center contends that DOJ’s interpretation—that merely writing code facilitating transactions equates to money transmission—contradicts long-standing Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) guidance (2013 and 2019), which exempts non-custodial actors. Their strategy includes supporting affected developers, like Michael Lewellen’s lawsuit against DOJ, and advocating for legislative codification of FinCEN’s guidance via the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.

Amicus Briefs and Support: Coin Center files amicus curiae briefs to influence court rulings, as seen in their backing of Tornado Cash-related cases, arguing that publishing code is protected speech under the First Amendment. This legal support aims to set precedents shielding developers from criminal liability for others’ use of their software.

While primarily litigation-focused, Coin Center complements its courtroom efforts with legislative proposals. Their 2025 policy priorities include pushing Congress to repeal or amend unconstitutional provisions (e.g., Section 6050I) and clarify developer liability. They’ve worked with lawmakers to introduce bills countering Treasury and DOJ actions, ensuring that if courts don’t fully resolve issues, statutory protections can safeguard their constituents. This dual-track approach—litigation and legislation—maximizes their impact.

Coin Center selects cases with potential to challenge foundational regulatory frameworks. For instance, their Section 6050I lawsuit could, if successful, undermine decades-old anti-money laundering laws beyond crypto, as noted by observers like The Verge in 2022. Similarly, their Tornado Cash litigation questions the scope of sanctions law, potentially affecting how software is regulated across industries. This strategy leverages crypto-specific disputes to address wider civil liberties concerns, appealing to allies like the Cato Institute and Fight for the Future.

Beyond direct legal action, Coin Center educates policymakers and the public to bolster their cases’ legitimacy. Their detailed reports (e.g., “Principles for Crypto Legislation,” January 2025) and events like the 2025 Annual Dinner frame their legal arguments in accessible terms, rallying support from the crypto community and civil rights advocates. This soft power amplifies their courtroom efforts by shaping judicial and legislative perceptions.

Tornado Cash litigation continues to test sanctions law, with Coin Center supporting parallel developer defenses. Their backing of Michael Lewellen’s suit against DOJ (highlighted in a January 2025 X post by Peter Van Valkenburgh) signals ongoing resistance to prosecutorial overreach. Coin Center’s strategies hinge on framing software development as a protected right, using constitutional arguments to curb agency actions, and pursuing systemic change through precedent or law.

Success could redefine tech regulation, but setbacks—like the initial 6050I dismissal—show the uphill battle against entrenched government power. Their persistence suggests a long-term commitment, potentially escalating to higher courts if lower rulings falter. What specific aspect of their strategy interests you most?