The Dictatorship

McDonald’s is clowning itself with its DEI rollback

Published

1 year ago

January 11, 2025

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

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

18 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

18 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

18 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.