A Meritocracy, If You Can Keep It

The structure of a nation’s economy touches each citizen. It influences how citizens make life-altering decisions, from college commitments to career choices. In America, our economic order has long been undergirded by the assumption of meritocracy.

Meritocracy is a simple concept: Those who work hard and excel will be rewarded, and the fruits of one’s labor are evidence of capability and competency.

Unfortunately, a government-sanctioned assault on meritocratic principles has been underway for over 60 years. Following the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the doctrine of disparate impact fueled discrimination against qualified Americans based on their race or gender in hiring.

In the 1970s and ‘80s, a new wave of discriminatory policies immersed academia, with the proliferation of affirmative action initiatives. In the 2010s, discriminatory DEI policies began to take hold in corporate America, freezing qualified applicants out of jobs and stunting the career growth of others. In fact, until Louisiana v. Callis, interpretations of the Voting Rights Act allowed congressional and state legislative districts to be drawn strictly based on race.

The second Trump administration has taken numerous actions to restore America to its status as a meritocratic nation. Recently, on June 9, the Department of Justice released an opinion that found previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hiring guidelines based upon the aforementioned disparate impact doctrine resulted in unconstitutional racial discrimination.

In all aspects of American society, discrimination was ingrained into its structures. Whether in the public or private sectors, academia, or even the Congress, discrimination against certain groups was tolerated, despite Orwellian declarations of equality.

These efforts—including the Biden administration’s estimated $1.1 trillion in government spending on DEI policies, universities spending millions on DEI staff, and private corporations’ $340 billion in racial diversity initiatives post-2020—are finally being undone.

This is not the first action the Trump administration has taken to curtail the harmful effects of the disparate impact doctrine. In December 2025, the DOJ discontinued enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act for race- or sex-based quotas, without actual intent to discriminate. Earlier in 2025, the DOJ issued guidance asserting that race- and sex-based DEI programs are unconstitutional and impermissible, particularly for states and schools receiving federal funding.

This latest decision allows corporations to test for competence without having to worry about unintended disparities in results. Employers can now freely use metrics that are “generally related” to job function, including aptitude tests and SAT scores.

Employers have already begun rolling back their commitment to discriminatory DEI policies. The frequency of DEI mentions in corporate earnings calls and documents has declined from its peak in 2022.

A recent White House report found these initiatives associated with a 2.7% decline in productivity. This equated to a $94 billion loss to the economy in 2023 alone. The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative has kept the pressure on these companies to abandon these harmful and immoral policies.

This new rule is a fantastic step in restoring both meritocracy and moral order to the American economy. Employers, ever since Griggs v. Duke Power Company, have had to avoid false claims of discrimination and execute complex workarounds to restrictions on aptitude testing. Consequently, thousands of talented Americans lost career opportunities because of their immutable characteristics.

This was the very sort of structural discrimination the Civil Rights movement claimed to oppose. By rejecting race- and sex-based preferences, the rule reaffirms the fundamental American principle that opportunity should be earned, not allocated.

Americans still believe broadly in meritocracy; 68% thought the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard  was “mostly a good thing.” While American institutions have drifted from the concept of meritocracy in previous decades, the citizenry has not.

To trope Benjamin Franklin, meritocracy endures only so long as it is actively maintained. The DOJ’s recent guidance is another step in that direction, restoring the idea that opportunity should track merit, not demographic identity, and that fairness requires treating individuals as individuals.