A little over a year ago, a series of executive orders dramatically shifted federal learning and development (L&D) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). At the time, many in our profession were still asking what these actions might mean in practice. Today, we are no longer speculating. The “DEI purge” is underway: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has aggressively downsized and reorganized the federal workforce, and L&D leaders across sectors are navigating a new, often contradictory reality.

On one hand, formal DEI structures and language inside the federal government have been dismantled or rebranded. On the other hand, organizations still need inclusive, high-performing teams to meet their missions. At the same time, mass reductions in force (RIFs) have pushed thousands of experienced federal professionals into the broader labor market, creating both risk and opportunity for employers.

L&D sits squarely at the center of all three dynamics: compliance, culture and capability.

The View From Inside: When Policy Becomes Personal

I spent 27 years working in the federal government in L&D leadership roles at the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Transportation. The people I worked with along the way are who I call my “federal family.”

In those roles, I designed and led large-scale learning strategies, built competency models, advised chief learning officers (CLOs) and supported mission-critical workforces, from information technology (IT) professionals to field survey staff.

Over the last year, my experience of these executive orders has been more than theoretical. My inbox has steadily filled with messages from former colleagues across agencies — from aviation security and hazardous materials specialists to human resources (HR) and learning leaders in cabinet-level departments — describing abrupt retirements and resignations as they took the “fork in the road,” as well as reorganizations. Many role eliminations tied to DEI-related work or to functions deemed “non-statutory” were targeted at L&D professionals. Some never carried a DEI title. Their “flag” was having facilitated an inclusion workshop, participated in an affinity group or led a culture initiative that, until recently, was celebrated. One specific example is the shift in focus from every agency’s desire to improve Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) scores and adding DEI questions to eliminating the EVS altogether, with minimal direction or explanation from senior leadership.

For many of these public servants, the impact is deeply personal: Their identity as mission-driven federal employees is disrupted overnight. Yet as they transition to the private sector, they bring strengths that are highly valuable, such as systems thinking, resilience, evidence-based decision-making and a track record of delivering results in highly scrutinized environments. The question for employers is not whether this talent exists; it is whether L&D will be ready to help them translate, reskill and thrive.

From DEI to “Inclusive Performance”: Same Needs, New Language

One of the clearest impacts of the new executive orders is the elimination or severe restriction of formal DEI and DEIA programs within federal agencies and among many organizations that contract closely with the government. In practice, that has meant:

• Dissolving DEI offices and reassignment or termination of DEI staff
• Scrubbing DEI-related language and content from federal websites, museums and program descriptions
• Heightened scrutiny of training content, internal communications and grant proposals that reference identity-based initiatives

What has not changed is the business reality that organizations still need:

• Teams that can communicate across differences and avoid groupthink
• Environments where employees feel psychologically safe enough to raise concerns and share ideas
• Leaders who can navigate conflict, bias and change without eroding trust

In response, many organizations — especially those operating in or adjacent to the federal space — are shifting from identity-centered framing to behavior- and outcome-centered framing. Instead of “DEI training,” we see programs titled:

• “High‑Performance Team Dynamics”
• “Bias‑Resilient Decision Making”
• “Ethical and Inclusive Leadership”
• “Psychological Safety for Managers and Teams”

The most effective of these offerings do not simply rename previously used content. They:

• Focus on observable behaviors (e.g., how we run meetings, make decisions, assign stretch work, give feedback).
• Use neutral but realistic case studies that highlight bias, exclusion and unfairness without being framed as “DEI workshops.”
• Tie learning outcomes directly to performance, risk and business metrics (e.g., safety, quality, customer experience, innovation, retention).

For L&D leaders, this is the new balancing act: designing programs that advance inclusion and equity goals while aligning with evolving compliance expectations and organizational risk tolerance.

DOGE and Workforce Optimization: A New Talent Market

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s “workforce optimization” initiatives and related executive orders have also moved from proposal to reality. Agencies have been directed to:

• Initiate large-scale reductions in force, prioritizing functions not mandated in statute and DEI-related roles
• Implement strict hiring ratios (e.g., one hire for every four departures), with DOGE-designated leaders able to veto new career appointments
• Reevaluate suitability criteria and reorganize or consolidate components

The result is a significant contraction of the federal workforce, including mission-critical and highly specialized roles. Behind the headlines, this has created three conditions that directly matter to L&D and talent leaders:

1. A large, underleveraged pool of experienced talent. Former federal employees often bring deep content expertise (e.g., energy, transportation, public health, statistics, security), strong stakeholder management skills and comfort operating under intense public and political scrutiny.
2. A “translation gap” between federal and corporate environments. Many displaced federal professionals need support in:

• Adopting commercial metrics (e.g., profit, customer lifetime value) versus purely mission or compliance-based metrics
• Working in faster, less hierarchical settings
• Using modern collaboration, data and project tools prevalent in the private sector
• Reframing their experience in language that resonates with hiring managers outside government

3. A time-limited competitive advantage for proactive employers. Organizations that can quickly recognize, onboard and reskill this talent will gain capabilities their competitors lack — particularly in regulated industries, infrastructure, cybersecurity, data and analytics and risk/compliance.

This is a strategic moment for L&D to partner with talent acquisition and business leaders to build structured “federal-to-corporate” pathways, including:

• Targeted onboarding academies that explain business models, customers and success metrics
• Skills conversion programs that map federal experience to corporate roles (e.g., from program manager to product manager, from regulator to risk or compliance specialist)
• Microcredentials and internal certifications that validate new skills and make career pathways transparent

The Rise of “Merit-Based” Language — and Why Measurement Matters

Another throughline in recent executive orders is the emphasis on merit-based employment, with explicit prohibitions on considering DEI-related factors in federal hiring, promotion and performance decisions. The federal government’s HR system was developed on “merit-based” employment. For organizations with federal contracts or close regulatory ties, the rhetoric of “merit only” is already influencing how performance systems are framed and audited.

This is not necessarily at odds with what many L&D and HR professionals have long advocated. When done well, a skills-based talent strategy:

• Clarifies the competencies, behaviors and experiences required for each role and level
• Uses structured tools to reduce subjectivity in hiring and promotion decisions
• Makes development pathways transparent so employees understand what “merit” entails

The risk arises when “merit-based” becomes a slogan without the underlying infrastructure. In that case, decisions can quickly revert to subjectivity and favoritism — ironically, the exact opposite of what true meritocracy requires.

Here is where L&D can lead:

• Codify competency models and skills maps. Partner with business leaders to define what success looks like in critical roles — not just technical skills, but decision-making, collaboration, change agility and ethical judgment.
• Integrate assessment into learning solutions. Move beyond seat time to include simulations, work samples, projects and performance-based assessments that provide credible evidence of capability.
• Equip managers to use data ethically and consistently. Provide training and tools to help managers interpret assessment results, run fair calibration sessions and provide actionable feedback tied to defined competencies.

In a policy environment that demands documented, defensible, merit-based decisions, organizations that invest in rigorous measurement will be better positioned to demonstrate compliance and to uphold fairness in practice. The challenge is always in the execution of theoretical frameworks and policies, for which we have yet to see the impact.

Practical Actions for L&D Leaders Right Now

Across government, government-adjacent, and purely private organizations, L&D teams can take several concrete steps in response to the evolving executive order landscape:

1. Audit and reframe your existing DEI and culture curricula.

• Identify content that could be perceived as misaligned with current policies, especially in government or highly regulated settings.
• Reframe, where necessary, around psychological safety, collaboration, ethics, respect and bias-resilient decision-making, making outcomes explicit and business-relevant.

2. Build structured pathways for ex-federal talent.

• Work with talent acquisition to identify promising candidates from the federal workforce.
• Design short, intensive learning journeys that help them understand your organization’s strategy, culture and tools — and that map their prior experience to new success profiles.

3. Strengthen your “merit infrastructure.”

• Refresh competency models and ensure learning programs are clearly aligned with them.
• Integrate measurable, observable outcomes and assessments into development offerings.
• Partner with HR to ensure performance management and promotion criteria are transparent, skills based and well communicated.

4. Invest in change leadership capabilities.

• Train leaders at all levels to communicate clearly in times of policy and workforce uncertainty.
• Provide tools to facilitate difficult conversations, manage anxiety, lead with empathy and maintain trust when employees watch colleagues —and sometimes entire functions — disappear.

Moving Forward: L&D as a Stabilizing Force

Executive orders have always shaped the context in which the federal workforce operates, but the past year has been different in its speed, scope and direct impact on L&D and DEI. For many of my federal family, these changes have meant the end of a federal career they expected to last a lifetime. For organizations across industries, this has created new compliance constraints, risks and opportunities.

Amid this volatility, L&D plays a critical stabilizing role. By reframing inclusive practices in compliance-savvy ways, building bridges for displaced public servants and making “merit” concrete and measurable, we can help organizations stay both accountable and humane. We can honor the contributions of those who served — and ensure that the next chapter of their careers, and of our workplaces, is defined by growth, clarity and genuine opportunity.