The Dictatorship
McDonald’s is clowning itself with its DEI rollback

During the height of the racial justice protests that came after Minneapolis police murdered George Floyd, McDonald’s joined the fray of businesses and institutions declaring their solidarity with all those committed to ending racism. In a post on June 3, 2020on the platform then known as Twitter, McDonald’s shared a short video listing Floyd’s name alongside other Black victims of violence, including Trayvon Martin and Atatiana Jefferson.
McDonald’s announced this week that it’s stepping away from its previously established DEI goals.
In muted red and yellow tones, the video read: “He was one of us; she was one us,” and continued that the “entire McDonald’s family grieves.” McDonald’s declared itself in solidarity with “victims of systemic oppression,” and made it clear that the corporation stands “with Black communities.” It offered as proof its donations to the Urban League and the NAACP. The video ended with a black screen with white letters: “Black lives matter.”
It’s unlikely that McDonald’s will be posting a similar video anytime soon. McDonald’s announced this week that it’s stepping away from some of its previously established DEI goalsretiring a specific DEI pledge and changing the way it refers to its diversity team.
The gestures made during the summer of 2020 appear to have been compelled more by peer pressure than by principle. Now, leaders of organizations from big-box stores to universities have publicly disavowed policies promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, whose acronym DEI has become shorthand for any and all attempts to address centuries of homogeneity, inequality and exclusion in educational and professional spaces.
In other sectors, leadership and development support programs for racial and ethnic minorities have been renamed, restructured or simply retired. And in light of the Supreme Court curtailing affirmative action in higher education and a concerted conservative onslaught on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, McDonald’s frames its move as an attempt to pre-empt further court challenges to its diversity efforts.
In a Jan. 6 open letter to employees and franchisees that acknowledges “the shifting legal landscape,” the company’s senior leadership team announced what it called “a new concept: the power of OUR ‘Golden Rule’ — treating everyone with dignity, fairness and respect, always.” The company says it is:
- “retiring setting aspirational representation goals and instead keeping our focus on continuing to embed inclusion practices that grow our business into our everyday process and operations”
- “pausing external surveys to focus on the work we are doing internally to grow the business”
- “retiring Supply Chain’s Mutual Commitment to DEI pledge in favor of a more integrated discussion with suppliers about inclusion”
- and “evolving how we refer to our diversity team, which will now be the Global Inclusion Team.”
McDonald’s senior leadership said it remains committed to inclusion and believes a diverse workforce is a competitive advantage.
How it distributes its supply contracts not only impacts which companies get the opportunity to stock McDonald’s restaurants with hamburger buns and sausage patties, but it also impacts workers who prepare these essential goods. “Pausing external surveys” means aggrieved employees may have trouble collecting data and information on potentially discriminatory action within the organization.
McDonald’s is among a few corporations that have profited heartily from the idea that they are a friend to Black communities. Long before the summer of 2020, the summer of 1968 (which followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.) spurred soul-searching and reflection about how people in power could be vehicles for social change. Unfortunately, in both eras, many of the proposed solutions pivoted on businesses making commitments to recruit more talent of color while also eyeing the ways that these seemingly pro-social policies could also yield more profits.
McDonald’s has profited heartily from the idea that it is a friend to Black communities.
McDonald’s had already emerged as a dominant presence in the fast-food world, but in the late 1960s, the company would distinguish itself as leader in what would eventually be called DEI. The first step was recruiting its first Black franchisee, Herman Petty, to reopen a store on Chicago’s South Side in December 1968, and enlisting Black regional managers and advisers to build what would be called “Black stores.” A numerically modest but economically impactful group of Black franchise owners introduced and revived the brand among urban consumers of color. McDonald’s devoted an advertising budget to create content exclusively for minority media and recruited Black celebrities like Michael Jordan and Gladys Knight for national campaigns, making the company a leading source of contracts for Black-owned radio and TV networks, as well as marketing and consulting firms.
The McDonald’s logo appeared on material heralding contributions to civil rights organizations, historically Black colleges and universities and cultural initiatives. Many of those actions were initiated and funded by its growing network of Black franchise owners, who tried to hold McDonald’s accountable for contributing to a loyal and critical part of their consumer market.
Forty-four years after the first Black franchise owner entered the McDonald’s system, the chain selected Don Thompsonits first Black CEO, in 2012. That felt like a sign that the Golden Arches could recognize Black talent after decades of touting itself as a diversity champion in its recruitment efforts. Much of the company’s success — from the 1980s until the mid-2000s — was related to the work of Patricia Sowell Harrisa pioneer in the field of corporate diversity who started her early career at McDonald’s as an affirmative action officer in 1985.
In light of the national backlash against discussing the nation’s history or racism, it may not come as much of a surprise to those who don’t know the company’s history that McDonald’s is disavowing DEI. But so much of McDonald’s branding strategy for the last 50 years has promoted the chain as not just a place to eat cheap food served fast but as a supporter of the Black community and Black entrepreneurship.
This thinking and strategy expanded to other communities that gave birth to affinity groups for Latino franchisees, members of the AAPI community, women and LGBTQ people. This was smart business because it was lucrative, but it was also protective business because such demonstrations of appreciating diversity could also be used to deflect serious and important challenges to the labor experiences of its workers, most of whom are people of color.
So much of McDonald’s branding strategy has promoted the chain as a supporter of the Black community and Black entrepreneurship.
In recent years, when Black franchisees have organized and filed lawsuits against McDonald’s claiming racial discrimination related to the assignment of restaurants and alleging a lack support during challenging times such as the Covid-19 shutdowns, McDonald’s was able to argue its bona fides in creating Black wealth through franchises and its internal commitment to diversity.
But with its announcement that it’s retiring certain DEI policies, McDonald’s seems to have concluded that it doesn’t need the diversity talking points anymore, and although it’s one of the most powerful and influential global corporations with a record that speaks volumes about how diversity initiatives have enriched the company, it doesn’t appear to believe that diversity — no matter how superficial — is worth fighting for anymore.
In McDonald’s announcement, the company argued that its “early and full adoption of inclusion gives us a competitive advantage,” which both recognizes and glosses over the dynamic history that McDonald’s has had in DEI and signals that the company hopes the public will use the past to inform the present. But it’s still uncertain what the future will hold for a company that once touted itself to be a fast-food leader and has revealed that, like most corporations, it’s just a self-interested follower.
Marcia Chatelain
Marcia Chatelain is a professor of African American Studies at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Franchise: The Golden Arches in Black America.”
The Dictatorship
Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm


-
New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’
10:42
-
‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister
08:37
-
Now Playing
-
UP NEXT
‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears
05:47
-
The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’
04:59
-
Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war
03:53
-
Ukraine didn’t agree to ceasefire, they bent the knee to extortion, says House member
07:26
-
Dumbest war the U.S. has ever fought: House member slams Trump’s tariffs
03:09
-
‘Mock him’: Why Democrats are failing when it comes to protesting Trump
09:39
-
Musk calls Sen. Mark Kelly a ‘traitor’ over his social media posts in support of Ukraine
04:00
-
Richard Engel: Today, Ukrainians ‘quite satisfied’ with temporary ceasefire
04:16
-
‘Serious and dangerous’ for the economy: Trump’s messaging scares some of his own advisers
08:57
-
Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect, Europe retaliates
09:11
-
Joe Scarborough’s powerful 9/11 tribute song ‘Reason to Believe’ (2011)
03:45
-
Joe’s decade-long warnings on EU immigration and the rise of Europe’s far-right
03:28
-
What really happens before Morning Joe goes live? ‘Blue Dawn’ tells all (2019 Promo)
04:15
-
The Morning Joe crew gets moving to ‘Dance to the Music’ (2015 Promo)
03:00
-
We have underestimated Putin as an ideological leader: Amb. McFaul
08:58
-
Molly Jong-Fast: Trump’s empty promises are catching up to him
03:09
-
Joe: Elon Musk said we have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare
10:56
-
New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’
10:42
-
‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister
08:37
-
Now Playing
Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm
03:49
-
UP NEXT
‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears
05:47
-
The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’
04:59
-
Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war
03:53
The Dictatorship
Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”
Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.
Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.
Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”
By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?
But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.
Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).
Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowlon February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade.
The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.
In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention.
Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.
But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).
How can Canadians end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?
In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”
Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?
But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that.
Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”
In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government.
The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.
Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”
The Dictatorship
The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to hand a blank check over to a White House that is already stealing from our families and communities to fund the largest possible tax cut for billionaires and the biggest corporations.
The continuing resolution passed by the House gives Elon Musk and President Donald Trump even more flexibility to steal from the middle class, from seniors, from veterans, from working people, from small businesses and from farmers, all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
The administration’s slash-and-burn approach has already left a trail of destruction in our communities. From our national parks to Social Security officesVA medical centers to food banks, Americans are seeing the direct results of the administration’s illegitimate, ill-informed and illegal campaign to tear apart our institutions.
This CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government.
Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out Congress’s authority to determine spending. It reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To carry out this authority, the House and Senate Appropriations committees engage in tough negotiations that result in bipartisan legislation to fund the government and all of the agencies, programs and services that are provided to the American people.
As recently as early March, we were on the cusp of such an agreement. The “four corners” of the Appropriations committees — Tom Cole and me in the House and Susan Collins and Patty Murray in the Senate — were inches away from securing a deal on the funding topline, which would have allowed us to begin the roughly monthlong process of writing full-year bills.
This process is critically important: It ensures that final funding bills are the results of broad compromise among the people’s elected representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want, but instead, the interests of Americans from coast to coast are considered and accounted for.
But House Speaker Mike Johnson, at the behest of Musk and President Trump, pulled the rug out from under us and set the House on a track to hand Congress’ authorities over government funding to Musk and Trump. Several of my House colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who by their own admission never vote in favor of government funding bills, enthusiastically voted for this CR, completely ending the appropriations process.
As Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districts, the American people are wise to their abandonment of duty.
Why? Because this CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government and destroy the services that help Americans get by, and because they believe the president will continue to unilaterally freeze and deny funding for programs and services that do not serve his interests.
House Republicans would rather let an unchecked billionaire and President Trump seize taxpayer funds intended for families and businesses.
But as Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districtsthe American people are wise to their abandonment of duty and of responsibility. Their constituents are so furious that the party’s political consultants are telling lawmakers to stop holding town halls altogether and just hide.
President Trump was elected because the American people wanted help with the cost of living. But the cost of living is nowhere to be found among the president’s concerns since he took office. Rather, he has set off on an agenda of vengeance and destruction, threatening the stability of our economy and the legitimacy of our government. He declared a trade war on our neighbors and closest alliesraising costs on American households, businesses and farmers and weakening our international relationships.
And the Trump administration continues to steal from the American people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire with immense conflicts of interest, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to illegally freeze payments, tear down our institutions, fire career civil servants who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to President Trump and rip apart hard-fought labor agreements that protect working-class Americans. They even have Social Security in their sights.
My phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents telling me how Musk’s and President Trump’s cuts have affected them, and I know the same is happening in my Republican colleagues’ offices.
Kris, a student at Common Ground High School in my district and an intern at Haven’s Harvest, a volunteer organization that reduces food waste, contacted me after 71 student workers across New Haven were laid off because of the funding freeze. Kris’ internship was part of the Green Jobs Corps, funded by a grant since canceled by the Environmental Protection Agency.
I’ve also heard from CitySeed, which connects dozens of farmers across Connecticut with residents who need access to fresh, local food, through farmers markets, culinary programs and entrepreneurship opportunities. The organization has had funding that helps cover its administrative costs frozen, as well.
And Monica, a senior citizen in my district with a low income who relies on Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, told me she is not just worried about paying her bills or filling the freezer — she is worried that she will not be able to survive if the Trump administration’s cuts go through.
Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder.
I was at Bradley Airport in Connecticut this week when two Transportation Security Administration officers found out they had been let go. One of them told me they began working for the TSA immediately after its creation in the wake of Sept. 11. I must have missed when the American people asked for fewer TSA agents and longer wait times at checkpoints.
This is wrong, cruel and completely unnecessary. The funding freeze must end, and these draconian cuts must be stopped. But instead of standing up for their constituents and for Congress’s constitutional powers, the CR that passed the House lets Musk and President Trump freeze, cancel and repurpose taxpayer dollars as they see fit.
If this CR becomes law, Musk and President Trump will be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. That will result in office closures, longer wait times and unacceptable backlogs for Americans who are trying to access their earned benefits.
Under this bill, Army Corps of Engineers construction projects to manage our waterways and mitigate flood risks will be cut by $1.4 billion, or 44%. And President Trump, not Congress, would determine all project funding levels and who gets the funding.
Instead of helping our communities address sky-high housing costs, the CR cuts rent subsidies by more than $700 million, leaving landlords to foot the bill or evict more than 32,000 households. And there is not enough funding for disaster relief, abandoning American families who have had their lives turned upside down by extreme weather.
I voted against this CR, and several of my Republican colleagues voted in favor of a CR for the first time, for the same reason: We do not expect the president to actually follow the law.
Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending, as is laid out in Article I of the Constitution?
So long as House Republicans are unwilling to defend the powers of the offices they were elected to hold, all of our constituents will continue to pay the price.
Regrettably, the House has already offered to forfeit its authority to the White House. I implore our colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the American people and our Constitution, reject this CR and put a freeze on this blank check.
Rep. Rose
Rep. Rosa DeLauro serves as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. She represents Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show4 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Uncategorized4 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Economy4 months ago
Fed moves to protect weakening job market with bold rate cut
-
Uncategorized4 months ago
Johnson plans to bring House GOP short-term spending measure to House floor Wednesday
-
Economy4 months ago
It’s still the economy: What TV ads tell us about each campaign’s closing message
-
Politics4 months ago
RFK Jr.’s bid to take himself off swing state ballots may scramble mail-in voting
-
Politics4 months ago
How Republicans could foil Harris’ Supreme Court plans if she’s elected
-
Politics4 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate