Goldman Sachs scales back DEI language amid Trump administration crackdown
Goldman has dropped a board-diversity rule, scrubbed filing language and is set to expire its hiring goals as Trump-era pressure reshapes DEI at the bank.
Goldman Sachs has already ended its requirement that companies it takes public have two diverse board members, removed a diversity and inclusion section from its annual filing and moved to drop DEI from board-candidate criteria. The bank’s five-year aspirational hiring and representation goals were set to expire in 2025, tightening the internal debate over what gets renamed, narrowed or defended as political pressure builds around workplace diversity.
For employees, the shift is likely to show up in the language managers use long before it shows up in a headline. Job descriptions, leadership scorecards, sponsorship programs, supplier policies and internal communications are all exposed to more legal review, especially at a firm where team composition can shape promotion paths, staffing on marquee deals and the pace of career advancement. Goldman still has a Diversity & Inclusion page on its public website, and its 2023 People Strategy Report included an Inclusion in Action section, underscoring how deeply the message was embedded before the pullback began.
Goldman’s changes fit a broader corporate retreat after President Donald Trump’s executive order and the surrounding pressure on U.S. companies. In February 2025, the bank dropped the IPO rule that had required two diverse directors at companies it took public, reversing a standard that had been a visible part of its public-market playbook. Later that month, it removed the diversity and inclusion section from its annual filing, a quieter change that signaled how much more cautious the firm had become about what it was willing to put in writing.
The stakes inside Goldman are practical, not abstract. In May 2022, the bank said it had boosted its recruiting team with $10 million to help meet goals to add more women, Black and Latino employees. That spending flowed into recruiting, mentorship and the sponsorship pipeline that can determine who gets staffed on high-profile assignments, who earns visibility with senior bankers and who builds the track record that matters in bonus cycles and exit opportunities.
Goldman is not making these adjustments in isolation. JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and other Wall Street firms are navigating the same legal and political crosscurrents, and the result is already visible in how banks talk about culture and talent. The likely outcome at Goldman is a softer vocabulary around inclusion, tighter compliance review of public statements and a more guarded approach to any program that could be read as a promise rather than a preference.
This article was produced by Prism’s automated news system from verified source data, official records, and press releases, then run through automated quality and moderation checks before publishing. The system is built and supervised by the people who set the standards it runs under. Read our full AI policy.
Did this article answer your question?
