Sullivan: The Return Of The McCarthyite Chill

Accurate:

…This is “the first arrest of many to come,” says Trump. DHS is already searching dorm rooms.

Note the astonishing breadth of this legal formula. You could, for example, be a Ukrainian exile who furiously opposes the Trump administration’s new policy toward Russia. Under the Rubio standard, if you do not have citizenship, merely expressing your views in a way that jeopardizes US foreign policy interests is now a deportable offense. The Trump administration, unless a court stops them, has effectively removed the First Amendment from tens of millions of inhabitants of this country.

It’s actually worse: if you merely potentially could say such a thing, you can be deported for a pre-crime, or rather pre-noncrime. Every noncitizen in the US now has to watch what they say about foreign policy — or else. You may have just arrived from Putin’s Russia, and are now being told by Trump: don’t think you now have free speech just because you’re in America. The US government is monitoring your every word and can deport you if you say the wrong thing. You have to wait until you’re a citizen to be free.

If the law seems McCarthyite, that’s because it was passed in 1952 and aimed specifically at Holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe suspected of communist sympathies. According to historian David Nasaw in The Last Million, “suspected Communists were denied visas while untold numbers of antisemites, Nazi collaborators, and war criminals gained entrance to the United States.” It is one of the sublime ironies of this that the ADL now supports a law that once persecuted Holocaust survivors. Back in 1950s, the ADL called it “the worst kind of legislation, discriminatory and abusive of American concepts and ideals.” Now that the ADL can use the law to go after its foes, it’s fine.

Has the law been used before to revoke visas? Yes, for the deportation of otherwise-protected diplomats who might impede relations with another country. Here’s the single lonely example of a precedent:

The case involved Mario Ruiz Massieu, the former deputy attorney general of Mexico who entered the United States in 1995 on a visa. That year, the U.S. government tried to send him back to Mexico, where he was wanted on money laundering and other charges. The secretary of state at the time, Warren Christopher, said deportation was necessary for foreign policy reasons. Allowing [him] to stay would undermine the U.S. push for judicial reforms in Mexico…

The law has never been used, so far as I have been able to discover, to target noncitizens’ free-speech rights. Take the case of Irish immigrants who, for decades, openly supported a designated terrorist organization, the IRA, and provided the majority of the material support, i.e. most of the money, to kill innocents in an allied country, the UK, which has long been America’s most reliable ally. The Dish hasn’t been able to find a single case where an Irish noncitizen was deported for seriously adversely affecting the foreign policy of the US.

I suspect, in fact, that the Trump administration chose this law precisely to avoid accusing Khalil of an actual crime. All they have to prove now is that they consider him a serious potential impediment to their conduct of foreign policy. And because they fear that a judge might test the reasonableness of that Rubio decision, they swiftly transported Khalil to a notorious jail in Louisiana, a state where a more pliant judge is likelier. For good measure, they prevented him from talking to his lawyers for days — and they still can’t speak privately

The White House mocked him from their X account: “SHALOM, MAHMOUD.” Take a second to absorb that monstrosity: the glib and spiteful use of a Jewish term for goodbye to a Muslim. And not from some nasty X nutter. From the president who is supposed to represent all of us, but is, in fact, a deranged, bigoted troll. 

I’m going to pause now for the unnecessary paragraph that is yet somehow necessary. I despise Hamas for its North Korean-level brainwashing of children, its Nazi-level anti-Semitism, and its barbaric use of women and children as human shields. I have absolutely no time for campus protests that go over the line into intimidation of other students. If crimes have been committed, I have no problem prosecuting. But offensive speech? It’s allowed in America. Handing out fliers? It’s how America began! A campus can (and should) discipline its students; but the federal government intervening to seize a legal resident and trying to deport him for speech — along with a dragnet for finding others to throw out — is an outrage in a free country. 

Can the Trump administration win this fight? I suspect they can. Rubio sayshe intends to deport any noncitizen who merely “supports Hamas” — not materially supports, but just supports Hamas — and not just in the past, but in the future.

But they seem to believe a visa is the same as a green card. JD Vance — who lectured Europeans on free speech online, while his own administration was using AI to police the web for dissent! — said on Fox that a green card holder “doesn’t have an indefinite right to stay in America.” The formal name for a green card is “Legal Permanent Resident”, Mr Vice President, not Legal Provisional Resident. They enter the US in the citizen line. And until now, every applicant for a green card has waited for that moment of relief when it’s finally granted, the knowledge that now you are safe and here for good. It remains one of the best days of my own life. Vance just stripped all of that away from all of us. Probably because, like the rest of these incompetent thugs, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and doesn’t much care.

For the sake of argument, let’s say all this is technically lawful, if obviously a massive stretch. A further question remains: even if it is technically legal, do we want to live in an America that tells any noncitizen that they can obey every law, and commit no errors in their immigration journey, but they are still not safe from deportation if they speak their minds … about Israel? Do we want to tell their American-citizen wives, husbands, and children that they have no right to keep their family intact because of problematic speech? 

And let’s not kid ourselves. The reason this is happening is because the government being assailed on American campuses and streets is not any government, and not even the American government, but the government of Israel. It’s part of a much broader campaign to chill criticism of the Jewish state. To give a simple example, the documentary No Other Land about the conflict on the West Bank just won an Oscar for Best Documentary. It has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 100 percent for both critic and audience scores, which damn near never happens. But try and find a place to see it in this country. You can’t stream it; no one will distribute it; the few movie theaters that do show it are brutally punished.

Of course I understand why. Antisemitism is surging on the Trump right — just this week, Joe Rogan had a Churchill-hater and Holocaust-minimizer on his show. It’s endemic on the far left. October 7 was a reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust. On campus in America, Jews have been harassed, spat on, intimidated, demonized — and the pathetic college deans have caved. I understand the outrage at these grotesque double standards. I truly do. 

But there are emotions on the other side too. I am not defending Mahmoud Khalil’s worldview, but I can note that his grandmother was forced to leave her home near Tiberias during the first wave of Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1948; she walked 40 miles to exile, giving birth along the way; and the family lived in tents in a refugee camp in Syria for decades. Now the grandson watches as Israel obliterates Gaza, with thousands of women and children dead, and the US wants to ship all the Gaza Palestinians elsewhere so Jared Kushner can set up some new White Lotuses.

I’m not asking you to agree with Khalil. I am asking you to extend the same empathy to him as you would a Jewish-American traumatized by the surge in hideous antisemitism. I’m asking you to treat him as a human being: flawed, maybe misguided, but human. Not Jewish not Arab but human. I’m not defending Khalil’s rights because I hate Israel. I am defending him because I love America. 

And stop changing the subject. The specific charge matters in a country with the rule of law: this case is not about terrorism even if you want it to be; it’s not about crime, even if you think it should be. It’s about a new McCarthyite apparatus to chill free debate on campus, make criticism of Israel legally hazardous to any noncitizen, and render every noncitizen in this country afraid to speak their mind on a vital matter. It is not a hard case. Rubio has made it a very simple one.

As for all those brave center-right defenders of free speech on campus these last few years? Just see if they are condemning this. And if they aren’t, never take them seriously on this subject again….

Source: The Return Of The McCarthyite Chill

USA Immigration ‘gold card’: What is it, and how could it impact our immigration system? 

Of note:

The Bush Institute is a proponent of increasing legal immigration pathways to the U.S., including raising or eliminating per-country caps on green cards. Will the gold card help? 

While the devil is in the details, right now it seems as if the gold card could be a new legal pathway for potential immigrants. But it could also make it harder to qualify for the existing EB-5 program, making a current legal pathway more difficult.  

There are two major policy issues with this proposal. First, while investment and job creation are great, this program doesn’t bring in the workers the U.S. economy needs to fill the open jobs it already has. Even if you assume that a company would pay a high fee to keep, attract, or retain a foreign worker, that’s not a sustainable model to fill the nearly 8 million open jobs in the U.S. The current EB-5 program doesn’t either. Job creation is a wonderful policy goal, but we still need millions of workers to fill open positions.  

Second, similar visa programs around the world have been criticized for being easy targets for corrupt individuals looking to buy their way into countries. Any investor visa program, whether the proposed gold card or the current EB-5, will need to have appropriate vetting and safeguards built in to protect against this possibility.  

Source: Immigration ‘gold card’: What is it, and how could it impact our immigration system?

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Quite a list, including many I would classify as descriptive and objective, and some that merely correct silly language (e.g., breastfeed + people, breastfeed + person, chestfeed + people, chestfeed + person, pregnant people, pregnant person):

As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

  • accessible
  • activism
  • activists
  • advocacy
  • advocate
  • advocates
  • affirming care
  • all-inclusive
  • allyship
  • anti-racism
  • antiracist
  • assigned at birth
  • assigned female at birth
  • assigned male at birth
  • at risk
  • barrier
  • barriers
  • belong
  • bias
  • biased
  • biased toward
  • biases
  • biases towards
  • biologically female
  • biologically male
  • BIPOC
  • Black
  • breastfeed + people
  • breastfeed + person
  • chestfeed + people
  • chestfeed + person
  • clean energy
  • climate crisis
  • climate science
  • commercial sex worker
  • community diversity
  • community equity
  • confirmation bias
  • cultural competence
  • cultural differences
  • cultural heritage
  • cultural sensitivity
  • culturally appropriate
  • culturally responsive
  • DEI
  • DEIA
  • DEIAB
  • DEIJ
  • disabilities
  • disability
  • discriminated
  • discrimination
  • discriminatory
  • disparity
  • diverse
  • diverse backgrounds
  • diverse communities
  • diverse community
  • diverse group
  • diverse groups
  • diversified
  • diversify
  • diversifying
  • diversity
  • enhance the diversity
  • enhancing diversity
  • environmental quality
  • equal opportunity
  • equality
  • equitable
  • equitableness
  • equity
  • ethnicity
  • excluded
  • exclusion
  • expression
  • female
  • females
  • feminism
  • fostering inclusivity
  • GBV
  • gender
  • gender based
  • gender based violence
  • gender diversity
  • gender identity
  • gender ideology
  • gender-affirming care
  • genders
  • Gulf of Mexico
  • hate speech
  • health disparity
  • health equity
  • hispanic minority
  • historically
  • identity
  • immigrants
  • implicit bias
  • implicit biases
  • inclusion
  • inclusive
  • inclusive leadership
  • inclusiveness
  • inclusivity
  • increase diversity
  • increase the diversity
  • indigenous community
  • inequalities
  • inequality
  • inequitable
  • inequities
  • inequity
  • injustice
  • institutional
  • intersectional
  • intersectionality
  • key groups
  • key people
  • key populations
  • Latinx
  • LGBT
  • LGBTQ
  • marginalize
  • marginalized
  • men who have sex with men
  • mental health
  • minorities
  • minority
  • most risk
  • MSM
  • multicultural
  • Mx
  • Native American
  • non-binary
  • nonbinary
  • oppression
  • oppressive
  • orientation
  • people + uterus
  • people-centered care
  • person-centered
  • person-centered care
  • polarization
  • political
  • pollution
  • pregnant people
  • pregnant person
  • pregnant persons
  • prejudice
  • privilege
  • privileges
  • promote diversity
  • promoting diversity
  • pronoun
  • pronouns
  • prostitute
  • race
  • race and ethnicity
  • racial
  • racial diversity
  • racial identity
  • racial inequality
  • racial justice
  • racially
  • racism
  • segregation
  • sense of belonging
  • sex
  • sexual preferences
  • sexuality
  • social justice
  • sociocultural
  • socioeconomic
  • status
  • stereotype
  • stereotypes
  • systemic
  • systemically
  • they/them
  • trans
  • transgender
  • transsexual
  • trauma
  • traumatic
  • tribal
  • unconscious bias
  • underappreciated
  • underprivileged
  • underrepresentation
  • underrepresented
  • underserved
  • undervalued
  • victim
  • victims
  • vulnerable populations
  • women
  • women and underrepresented

Source: These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

Winer: What to Expect When You’re Expecting Catastrophe

Good assessment, drawing from the experience under Hitler, appropriately so:

It’s as if the so-called shock and awe of that unholy duo—Donald Trump and Elon Musk—combined with loyalists like Kash Patel, Stephen Miller, Dan Bongino, Ed Martin, and many others, has rendered us, for the moment at least, unable to react.

Magical thinking is far from new. Adolf Hitler came to power amid similar lies and conspiracy theories. We should know where that leads. And, while MAGA may ignore the mountains of books written on fascism, the rest of us are not in the dark about what comes next.

As we brace for further actions from a cabinet catering to a serial fabulist, it is important to note that the president’s abstruse nonsense is not random. It has a history. A history that takes us in only one direction, to catastrophe.

Here, then, are things to watch for, all warnings from the well-known story of the Third Reich.

  • Daily life will take on a surreal quality and, if we do not take some action or join an organized resistance, our discussions will consist of merely repeating the latest horror.
  • People around you will forget that they once were anti-Trump.
  • The administration will issue absurd denunciations of opponents whose expertise is needed.
  • There will be parades and possibly mandatory public displays of support for the administration.
  • News sources will disappear or be radically altered.
  • MAGA will continue to believe what the leader says up until the very brink of disaster.

**

The debate about whether or not we should bring Hitler or Nazism or fascism into a contemporary political debate is obsolete. Now it is crucial that we take seriously the warnings gathered for us by survivors and writers. When you look at a photo of a Jew about to be arrested or shot and he or she is staring straight into the camera, remember that it is you they are looking at.

Source: Winer: What to Expect When You’re Expecting Catastrophe

Trump Promises To Deport Immigrants For Their Foreign Policy Views

Litigation to watch:

The Trump administration’s attempt to deport a lawful permanent resident protest leader may raise significant First Amendment issues. Arresting an immigrant who was a leader in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University has ignited controversy over the U.S. government’s deportation policies and their potential use to stifle dissent. Donald Trump has promised additional arrests, writing on Truth Social, “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country—never to return again.

The Arrest Of An Immigrant Protester

On March 8, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who graduated from Columbia University in December. Khalil was among the student leaders of Columbia University Apartheid Divest.

“His lawyer, Amy Greer, said the agents who took him into custody at his university-owned home near Columbia initially claimed to be acting on a State Department order to revoke his student visa,” reported the Associated Press. “But when Greer informed them that Khalil was a permanent resident with a green card, they said they would revoke that documentation instead.” According to the AP, Khalil was born in Syria and is being detained in Louisiana at an immigrant detention center.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

“According to a White House official, the Department of Homeland Security started looking for individuals at Columbia University based on Trump’s January antisemitism executive order,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “The White House official said the department found Khalil had participated in ‘pro-Hamas rallies’ and in distributing fliers. The agency presented the information to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who personally signed off on revoking his legal status.”

On March 10, 2025, in the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered, “To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner [Mahmoud Khalil] shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise.”

Using Foreign Policy Grounds To Deport Immigrants Who Protest

According to CNN, the Trump administration plans to arrest and deport individuals using foreign policy grounds. Under the law, “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” (Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.)

Trump seemed to confirm that provision would be used when he wrote on Truth Social: “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here.” (Emphasis added.)

An exception in the law is that an alien shall not be excluded or deported “because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

In a deportation proceeding, that exception can be overcome by a letter from the Secretary of State. “A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability,” according to Matter of Ruiz-Massieu, decided as amended June 10, 1999, in the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals.

“I do not think one can challenge Secretary Rubio’s determination in an immigration court that the noncitizen’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially adverse foreign policy consequences described in the letter,” said immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta. “On the other hand, the very constitutionality of the provision may be challenged in the Court of Appeals after the noncitizen has received a removal order under First Amendment principles and their ties to the United States.”

Mehta believes a lawful permanent resident would have the best chance to challenge the law, but a temporary visa holder could succeed, particularly an H-1B and L-1 visa holder. Those visas are dual intent, and the individuals can show ties to the United States.

Temporary visa holders who believe they could be targeted for their foreign policy views might be careful about leaving the United States since Trump administration officials would consider it easier to refuse a visa or deny entry (at a port of entry) than to place an individual in deportation proceedings.

Mehta notes that a lawful permanent resident seeking readmission from a trip abroad who is placed in removal can assert the burden is on DHS to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the individual is inadmissible. However, the burden is on a temporary visa holder to establish they are entitled to admission clearly and beyond doubt.

The Trump administration may use other grounds, such as support for a terrorist organization, to attempt deportation of individuals involved in protests. That may be challenging if the administration is unable to establish some link or coordination with the terrorist organization and the individual who is being deported.

Source: Trump Promises To Deport Immigrants For Their Foreign Policy Views

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to partly allow birthright citizenship restrictions

Will see if SCOTUS accepts application first or decides to shut it down immediately (SCOTUS has accepted application):

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow restrictions on birthright citizenship to partly take effect while legal fights play out.

In emergency applications filed at the high court on Thursday, the administration asked the justices to narrow court orders entered by district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that blocked the order President Donald Trump signed shortly after beginning his second term.

The order currently is blocked nationwide. Three federal appeals courts have rejected the administration’s pleas, including one in Massachusetts on Tuesday. 

The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from issuing any document or accepting any state document recognizing citizenship for such children….

Source: Trump administration asks Supreme Court to partly allow birthright citizenship restrictions

Census 2021 and IRCC Data: Citizenship

This deck is based on work I did for the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, using Census and operational data to contrast citizens and non-citizens by demographic (eg. CoB, age, gender) and socioeconomic (e.g. income, labour force participation, education).

Hamas and Feminist Dissonance

Sigh…:

It was predictable that Hamas officials and their radicalised international supporters would deny that sexual violence against Israeli women and men was committed on 7 October 2023. But denials from the academic field of women’s, gender, and sexuality studies are more surprising because they appear to violate two of the field’s salient principles: support for women’s sexual autonomy and insistence that women who lodge charges of sexual violence should be believed. Instead, a number of academic feminists have not only rejected Israeli claims, they have also embraced Hamas, along with all the reactionary patriarchal baggage of radical Islam, thereby abandoning their own stated values.

This subversion of academic feminism has been unambiguously apparent in multiple events organised by women’s and gender studies programs across the US since the 7 October attacks. The most recent of these was held on 11 February, when the Gender and Women’s Studies department at the University of California at Berkeley sponsored a webinar panel discussion titled “Feminist and Queer Solidarities with Palestine.” The original abstract for the event read:

“Some of the more important accomplishments of feminism include the insistence on “believing women” who come forward with accusations of sexual assault, and the awareness of increased sexual violence during militarized conflicts. Yet these achievements are currently being turned against real feminist concerns in Palestine. This talk will look at how Zionism has weaponized feminism, so as to serve Israel’s genocidal intent, by upholding debunked accusations of systematic Hamas mass assault, while ignoring documented reports of Israeli abuses.”

The abstract was taken down after UCB law professor Steven Davidoff Solomon published a critical op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on 3 February. Solomon anticipated that the panelists’ talks would likely “celebrate antisemitic violence” and create “a hostile environment for women” on campus, thereby violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Two days later, UC Berkeley’s chancellor Rich Lyons responded to Solomon in a letter to the Journal:…

Source: Hamas and Feminist Dissonance

How reliable is the government’s economic data? Under Trump, there are real concerns

Legitimate worry and consistent with the apparent “wrecking ball” approach to policy and programs:

Every month, the federal government serves up a steady diet of economic reports on everything from the price of groceries to the unemployment rate. These reports are closely followed: They can move markets — and the president’s approval rating.

Businesses and investors put a lot of stock in the numbers, which are rigorously vetted and free from political spin.

Now the Trump administration is calling that trust into question.

The government recently disbanded two outside advisory committees that used to consult on the numbers, offering suggestions on ways to improve the reliability of the government data. 

At the same time, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has suggested changing the way the broadest measure of the economy — gross domestic product — is calculated.

Those moves are raising concerns about whether economic data could be manipulated for political or other purposes. 

Among those raising the alarm is Erica Groshen. She’s one of the outside experts who received a terse email last week saying her services were no longer needed, because the committee she’d served on — the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee — had been folded.

Groshen cares deeply about the reliability of government data, having previously overseen the number crunching as commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

“Statistical agencies live and die by trust,” she says. “If the numbers aren’t trustworthy, people won’t use them to make important decisions, and then you might as well not publish them.”

Source: How reliable is the government’s economic data? Under Trump, there are real concerns

Working at Anheuser-Busch, I Saw What Went Wrong With the D.E.I. Movement

Although written by someone connected to anti-DEI republicans, a cautionary note on the need to understand brand values and identity in any DEI initiatives.

But of course, it neglects the risks associated with not broadening values and identity, not to mention the ethnics and morals of just catering to the base:

I still remember the day I realized Anheuser-Busch InBev was no longer the company I thought it was.

I had crunched the numbers and believed the company could make millions of dollars if we agreed to distribute canned coffees made by Black Rifle Coffee Company. I knew Black Rifle’s pro-military and pro-law-enforcement messaging could ruffle some progressive feathers — the company vowed to hire 10,000 veterans after Starbucks announced it would hire 10,000 refugees — but I also knew many of our drinkers shared those values and had grown fed up with the way Starbucks and other coffee companies seemed to cater to coastal, latte-loving elites.

The proposal was rejected. It was early 2022, two years after the George Floyd protests, and I was told that being associated with Black Rifle was too politically provocative, especially in progressive circles.

I should have seen it coming. Many corporations were flexing their credentials in the growing diversity, equity and inclusion movement. But for me, the incident was a particularly telling example of what was going wrong with Anheuser-Busch — and an early sign that too many American corporations had forgotten who their customers were.

To be clear, I believe that an employee base that has a diversity of thought — which is naturally associated with a diversity of ethnicities and backgrounds — is good for business. Different employees can better solve existing problems or identify new opportunities. But the massive corporate embrace of D.E.I. was always destined to fail, in large part because the movement was never well defined to begin with.

In 2019, I learned about the concept of D.E.I. at a meeting in Chicago from Frances Frei, a professor at Harvard Business School. I had no issue with what she described. Anheuser-Busch’s work force had become more diverse over the past decade, and I had watched employees of many backgrounds be given opportunities to grow based on their talents and contributions. If D.E.I. was about continuing this trajectory — being authentic to company culture and mission, listening and responding to customer needs and deploying logical processes — there was nothing to object to.

Unfortunately, the D.E.I. policies that followed at Anheuser-Busch were none of the above. In 2021 the company started using online dashboards that gave managers a breakdown of their employee base by demographic characteristics.

Then the company created annual performance targets linked to the company’s environmental, social and governance strategy, of which D.E.I. was one component, for thousands of employees. It was clear to me that if teams didn’t check the right boxes, managers could be punished. Promotions could be withheld. Bonuses could be lost. That year, senior executives, including me, attended weekly meetings to discuss D.E.I. initiatives. These meetings often distracted from more critical business matters, like the fact that the company risked losing employees as the Great Resignation set in. (Anheuser-Busch declined to comment for this article.)

Anheuser-Busch was hardly alone. At least 70 big companies — from Airbnb to G.E. — had set public targets for gender diversity hiring. Among the worst examples of efforts to accomplish D.E.I. goals was a diversity training course offered to Coca-Cola employees via a third-party platform that urged workers to “be less white,” which the presentation helpfully defined as being “less oppressive,” “less arrogant” and “less ignorant.” A course in Kentucky reportedly told nurses that “implicit bias kills,” that white privilege is a “covert” form of racism and that nurses may contribute to “modern-day lynchings in the workplace.”

I was already considering leaving Anheuser-Busch before the Black Rifle distribution idea was turned down. Once it was, I was certain it was time to go.

I accelerated efforts to start a fund with my high school friend Vivek Ramaswamy (who would become a Republican candidate for president). As many big asset managers were pushing D.E.I. onto the companies they were investing in, we decided to start a fund that would help its companies avoid the mistakes I’d seen at Anheuser-Busch. Raising money from Bill Ackman, Peter Thiel and others, we finalized our seed investment round at the end of February 2022, and I resigned from the company in March.

A year later, Anheuser-Busch became the poster child of what went wrong with the D.E.I. movement. In April 2023, the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney promoted Bud Light on social media by dressing up like Audrey Hepburn and drinking from a can of the beer.

While it was a small sponsorship by Bud Light standards, it was still puzzling. Transgender rights were a political lightning rod in many states, especially red ones, where Anheuser-Busch enjoyed high market share. And while Bud Light was in decline at the time and needed new marketing strategies to regain customers, it became America’s biggest beer brand largely by keeping its marketing away from political controversies. It was enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans for precisely that reason.

But what about Black Rifle? That was a distribution deal — trucks that delivered Bud and Bud Light would also carry Black Rifle to retailers like Walmart and 7-Eleven. That is very different from a sponsorship, in which a brand chooses to publicly associate itself with something or someone to burnish itself. Many know that Pepsi sponsored Beyoncé’s Super Bowl performance, but far fewer can probably identify which products its trucks deliver. Black Rifle’s sales have grown since I suggested that deal; loyal fans rewarded its authenticity and dedication to its mission. These days, its products are carried in Dr Pepper trucks.

The Mulvaney promotion generated enormous conservative ire. Commentators called for boycotts that hurt the company’s sales. Yet the company also caught flak from some on the left who felt the company should have been more vocal in its support of Ms. Mulvaney.

Bud Light couldn’t win. The sponsorship never should have happened. Ms. Mulvaney herself said, “For a company to hire a trans person and then not publicly stand by them is worse in my opinion than not hiring a trans person at all.”

I’m not saying that hiring a transgender influencer is wrong. The ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, for example, is famously, proudly progressive. Its customers wouldn’t bat an eye at a Mulvaney sponsorship, and the company could have stood by Ms. Mulvaney if conservatives complained, strengthening both its mission and the L.G.B.T.Q. rights movement.

And that’s a good thing. I have no issue with companies having a progressive mission and authentically sticking to it. Capitalism allows, even incentivizes, companies to compete for customers with different tastes.

But the D.E.I. movement demanded that companies pursue the same progressive goals, regardless of their mission and culture. When Anheuser-Busch embraced D.E.I., the partnership felt inauthentic. And that’s why it backfired.

Since he took office, President Trump has wasted no time dismantling D.E.I. policies in the public and private sectors. Many companies, including Tractor Supply Company and Harley-Davidson, began rolling back D.E.I. policies before he was elected. Meta, Target, Goldman Sachs and others have followed suit, and hiring quotas, racial equity audits and exclusionary benefits programs seem to present stronger legal risks to companies still pursuing them.

You can see how performative many companies were in their imposition of D.E.I. policies simply by how quickly they have retreated from those policies. And their demise was well underway before the election. No one wanted to become the next Bud Light.

I believe Mr. Trump is off to a good start. But it is much easier for him to issue an executive order ending D.E.I. programs in government than it is to end them in the private sector. Much of that work will have to come from corporate America.

The principles that built great American companies are simple: Hire the best people, serve your customers well and let merit and financial results determine success. While expanding opportunity and making employees feel welcome are worthy goals, how D.E.I. policies were carried out often strayed from these foundational principles and might have even created other forms of discrimination.

Today companies have an opportunity to demonstrate how true inclusion works: by judging people as individuals, not as members of groups.

Source: Working at Anheuser-Busch, I Saw What Went Wrong With the D.E.I. Movement