Navigating DEIA Language Mandates: A Practical Guide for Public Health Policy Professionals

by Mandy Morgan March 24, 2025

In our previous post, we explored how researchers can adapt to new federal restrictions on using Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) language in grant proposals. Now, we turn to public health practitioners in policy, government, and contracting roles. These professionals are on the front lines of implementing programs and writing policy briefs under evolving mandates that limit DEIA-related language. How can you continue promoting health equity goals while complying with new rules? This follow-up guide examines the current landscape of restrictions, the real-world consequences for public health programs, and strategies to adjust your language without losing the intent of your work.

We’ve updated with recent developments and data. Read on for a breakdown of what’s happening and how to navigate it.

The New Landscape: DEIA Language Restrictions in Government

Federal and state mandates are increasingly cracking down on DEIA terminology in public sector settings. Recent executive actions and laws have explicitly targeted anything labeled “diversity,” “equity,” or related terms.

Federal mandates

In January 2025, a sweeping Executive Order instructed every federal agency to “terminate…all ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts” and eliminate DEIA policies, offices, and programs within 60 days​. This order revoked prior equity initiatives and deemed many DEIA efforts “illegal and immoral discrimination,” mandating their end. Agencies were directed to shut down equity action plans, offices of diversity, and even environmental justice programs​. Over 100 terms were reportedly flagged for federal staff to avoid – including words like “disparities, diversity, equity, and race”​. In practice, this means federal employees and contractors have received lists of forbidden vocabulary and must purge these terms from reports and websites.

State-level restrictions

A parallel wave of state executive orders and legislation is rolling back DEI in public institutions. At least 14 states have enacted laws or orders since 2022 that curb DEI efforts in government or public universities. Additionally, West Virginia’s governor recently issued an order in 2025 ending all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in state agencies, claiming this would prevent “inappropriate preferential treatment for certain groups”. Other states like Florida, Texas, and Alabama have passed laws to defund university DEI offices and ban “divisive concepts” in public programs​.. Overall, at least 65 anti-DEI bills were introduced across the country in 2023–2024, with several becoming law​. These measures often go beyond higher education, sending a clear signal that public sector language and programs should be “colorblind” and avoid highlighting specific identities or inequities.

Institutions are literally peeling DEI language out of offices and programs.

Many organizations have responded to new bans by renaming or restructuring their diversity and equity units. For instance, after Texas outlawed campus DEI programs, several colleges simply rebranded their DEI offices with more neutral titles like “Belonging,” “Community Engagement,” or “Student Development”​.

Government agencies are attempting similar cosmetic changes – a recent federal memo revealed some contract descriptions were hastily changed “to obscure their connection to DEIA programs” during the transition​. However, regulators are catching on: officials warn that mere name changes are not enough if the underlying activities continue​. In short, public health professionals face a new reality in which certain words and frames are officially off-limits, and even long-standing equity initiatives must be justified in race-neutral, politically palatable terms.

Consequences for Public Health Programs and Policy Deliverables

Data and content removal

These DEIA language restrictions are not just semantics – they are already having tangible effects on public health work. Professionals in agencies and contracting roles have seen multiple consequences emerge.

In early 2025, federal health agencies temporarily shut down or altered public datasets and webpages to scrub prohibited language. As many people and archivists noted, several major CDC data portals went offline at the end of January 2025​. When they returned, they came with warning banners: “CDC’s website is being modified to comply with President Trump’s Executive Orders.”​.Some research files reappeared minus key documentation, and certain reports remained removed entirely. Even the Department of Defense purged thousands of webpages that highlighted contributions of women, Black, or LGBTQ groups (like noted controversial figure Jackie Robinson), defending the purge as eliminating DEI content. In the health arena, this abrupt data censorship hampers policy work – analysts lost access to health survey results and trend data needed to inform programs. It also means vetted information (like guidance on diversity in clinical trials) has been taken down or edited to fit the new mandates​. Public health practitioners relying on those resources must scramble for alternatives.

Halted research and reports

The crackdown has extended into scientific and policy publications. The CDC has ordered staff to withdraw any pending scientific papers involving CDC researchers so they could be reviewed for banned language​. Internal emails instructed authors to remove or rephrase terms to comply with the new federal definitions of “two sexes” and related policies​. This sudden review process caused confusion and pushback – journal editors noted it may not even be legal to alter accepted manuscripts​. Likewise, agencies paused public communications and press releases until political appointees could vet them for DEIA content. For policy professionals, this means delays in releasing important health briefs or reports, and extra rounds of revision to sanitize language. Routine phrases like “racial disparities in diabetes outcomes” or “targeting underserved communities” have become red flags to be removed. In some cases, entire reports on health equity issues are being shelved or heavily rewritten, undermining the clarity of public health messaging.

Cancelled grants and contracts

Perhaps most disruptive, active public health projects are at risk if they are deemed too equity-focused. The federal order to terminate “equity-related” contracts and grants​ has put many initiatives in jeopardy. By March 2025, agencies were compiling lists of any grant or contract that involved DEIA objectives with instructions to potentially terminate them.​ Legal analysts confirm this will result in numerous federal grants and contracts being cut off mid-stream.​ Already, reports surfaced of the National Science Foundation freezing payments to certain grantees and screening proposals for banned terms​. The NIH began terminating some research grants related to gender or equity to comply with the restrictions. For public health contractors, this creates chaos: deliverables might be halted or canceled outright because their very purpose (e.g. a “Health Equity Impact Assessment” or a training on implicit bias) is now forbidden. Organizations have to review ongoing projects and potentially renegotiate scope or language to avoid losing funding. Even when contracts aren’t canceled, new procurement language is being rewritten to exclude any mention of equity or diversity goals.

Workforce and program shifts

At the agency level, diversity and equity staff positions are being eliminated. Federal and state health departments have dissolved offices like “Minority Health” or “Health Equity” or reassigned their responsibilities elsewhere​. Training programs on cultural competence or anti-racism have been suspended. Policy teams are internally debating how to address well-known disparities without using the word “disparity.” This culture shift has a chilling effect: public health professionals report feeling they must self-censor discussions of race, racism, or inequity, even when these factors are critical to understanding health outcomes. Some state and local health officials worry that avoiding these topics will set back years of progress in focusing resources where they’re needed most.

Real-world examples illustrate the stakes. In one instance, a state health department preparing a maternal health report removed references to higher mortality rates among Black women, rephrasing it in bland terms about “certain groups” – for fear that naming the racial disparity could violate state policy. In another, the agency asked a contractor delivering a community health needs assessment to cut a section on historical discrimination impacting health outcomes. These kinds of edits can water down the findings and recommendations, but they’re becoming common. Critics, including many in the public health community, warn that sidelining DEIA efforts will ultimately widen health gaps and reverse progress made in recent years​

Navigating Language Shifts While Preserving Your Mission

Despite these challenges, public health policy professionals can adapt their communication and still uphold the spirit of health equity. It requires a strategic reframing of language. Here are some approaches to consider,

Align with the permitted vocabulary of “equal opportunity”

Reframe your goals in terms of fairness for all rather than using the word “equity.” The intent is similar, but the framing matters. Instead of writing “to promote health equity in rural areas,” say “to ensure all communities – including rural areas – have equal access to health services.” The latter emphasizes a universal benefit (everyone gets access) without triggering the equity buzzword. The new federal policy explicitly talks about serving “every person with equal dignity and respect”.

You can cautiously invoke that language to justify inclusive actions. Tie your program objectives to compliance with existing laws and values of equal treatment. If addressing racial health gaps, frame it as fulfilling civil rights obligations (ensuring no group is left behind) or as improving overall outcomes for the whole population. Essentially, translate “equity” to “equal access” or “meeting unmet needs” in your narratives.

Use data-driven descriptions instead of buzzwords

You can usually still describe health problems with data – just do it neutrally. If certain words like “disparity” or “racism” are off-limits, describe the situation in plain terms. Show the numbers. Rather than saying, “an alarming disparity exists in diabetes rates,” write, “The diabetes rate is 2x higher in [Group A] than [Group B].” You’ve conveyed the disparity without using that exact word. Similarly, instead of “marginalized communities,” specify “communities with the highest disease burden” or “areas with historically low access to care.” Focus on the condition or outcome (e.g., “low-income neighborhoods have a 10-year shorter life expectancy”) and avoid attaching value-laden labels. This data-centric approach emphasizes facts and needs, which is harder to object to. It also provides evidence for why a targeted intervention is necessary without explicitly framing it as a preferential equity initiative.

Jon Comment: And yes, we generally prefer “data-informed”, but in this case we agree with should mirror language that’s out there.

Substitute banned terms with acceptable alternatives

Develop a lexicon of substitute phrases that convey your point within the new guidelines. Here are some examples of terminology swaps.

• Diversity – use “broad representation” or “variety of backgrounds.”
• Equity / Equality – use “equal opportunity,” “fair access,” or describe the specific goal (e.g. “improving health for underserved groups”).
• Inclusion – use “participation” or “engagement” (e.g. “community engagement”).
• Underserved / marginalized – use “under-resourced,” “high-need,” or “communities with limited access.”
• Disparities / inequities – call them “gaps” or “differences in outcomes.”
• Racial (or ethnic) groups – if naming the group is sensitive, try “specific population groups” or identify by geography/income (“neighborhoods X, Y, Z” or “low-income households”).
• Systemic racism / bias – refer to “historical barriers” or “long-standing challenges” in care access.

For instance, a sentence like “We aim to combat systemic racism in healthcare to reduce racial disparities” could be reframed as: “We aim to address long-standing challenges in the healthcare system to reduce differences in outcomes among populations.” It’s less explicit but still points to the issue. Craft your list of red-flag words (based on what your funders or leadership have signaled) and brainstorm neutral replacements. Over 100 words were flagged in one federal report​ — you might obtain or infer such a list from agency guidance. Commonly avoided terms now include diversity, equity, inclusion, disparity, racism, privilege, underserved, gender, LGBTQ, etc. Replace them with specific descriptions as suggested above. The key is saying the same thing in a way that doesn’t trip the wire.

Emphasize needs and outcomes, not identities

Another tactic is to justify policies based on socioeconomic or geographic needs instead of group identity alone. For example, rather than arguing a program is needed “to help minority populations,” articulate that it targets communities with high poverty, low access to clinics, or other race-neutral criteria (which often overlap with minority status). Focus on place-based or economic disadvantage as the rationale. Many policymakers find it hard to oppose helping “high-poverty rural areas” or “struggling neighborhoods” when phrased that way, even if those areas are predominantly of one race. By highlighting universal goals (improving overall health metrics) and then pointing out that certain areas have worse metrics, you can make a case for targeted intervention without framing it as a race-based or identity-based preference. Essentially, pivot from “who” to “where/what”: address the problem wherever it is worst. This preserves the integrity of health equity work (still directing resources to those with greater need) while sidestepping accusations of favoritism.

Preserve intent internally and document everything

While outward-facing language may change, it’s crucial to keep measuring and addressing disparities behind the scenes. Continue collecting data on health outcomes by race, gender, etc. (there’s no law against internal data analysis). You may not publish those charts publicly right now, but having the evidence base will inform your decisions and be ready for use when the climate shifts again. Internally, you and your colleagues can maintain the values of DEIA even if you don’t use the acronym. Encourage your team with the understanding that “we call it something else but we’re still doing the work.” Also, meticulously document any changes you make to reports or programs for compliance reasons. If you have to remove a section on, say, LGBTQ health needs, keep a version on file. This protects the integrity of your work and could be important if policies are challenged in court or reversed in the future. Several of these federal mandates are already tied up in lawsuits (indeed, courts have enjoined parts of the executive orders, such as blocking the immediate termination of certain contracts​. A future administration or legal outcome might restore the emphasis on equity – and you don’t want to have lost all the groundwork in the meantime.

Find acceptable proxies to continue the work

Like with the U.S. Digital Service, now renamed DOGE, get creative in designing programs that achieve equity aims under a different name. If you can’t have a “Health Equity Task Force,” perhaps you can create a “Community Health Improvement Task Force” focusing on areas with the worst health indicators (which accomplishes a similar goal). If a funding opportunity can’t mention “disparities,” frame it as targeting specific diseases or risk factors that disproportionately affect certain groups but describe them generally. One successful example comes from a public health department that pivoted a proposed “Black maternal health initiative” into a “Maternal Mortality Reduction Program” focused on the highest-mortality zip codes. The program interventions (doula access, provider training, etc.) were largely the same; the proposal justified them in terms of high local mortality rates, not race. It was funded under the new rules, and the department still reached the intended population. Likewise, a contractor on a chronic disease project avoided the word “equity” and instead sold it as an “Efficiency pilot to reduce excess hospitalizations” – implicitly focusing on a low-income subset who had high ER visits but never labeling them as a special group. By tying efforts to broadly supported outcomes (healthcare cost savings, better overall health, compliance with federal requirements like Healthy People objectives), you can continue what is essentially health equity work in practice.

State leaders are actively enforcing these language shifts.

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey, on his first day in office, banned DEI programs in state agencies and argued it was needed to protect people from “discrimination”.” In press briefings, such officials often contend they are merely enforcing equal treatment and following recent court decisions​

As a policy professional, it’s important to be attuned to your political context. Listen to how your agency or funder’s leadership is messaging these changes – what phrases do they use? Gov. Morrisey, for example, emphasized West Virginia’s lack of racial diversity as a reason to eliminate DEI efforts​ and cited the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling as justification.​

Knowing this, public health staff in that state might frame any health initiatives in terms of benefiting all West Virginians or complying with new legal interpretations. In other states, leaders are focusing on “merit” or “viewpoint neutrality.” Tailor your approach accordingly: use the language of the current mandate to advance your work wherever possible. If the official line is “no preferences,” then emphasize how your program helps everyone and doesn’t grant special preference – even if you know it will particularly help a disadvantaged group. It’s a delicate dance, but it allows important programs to move forward.

Strategic Communication in Policy and Procurement Contexts

Adapting language is especially critical in policy writing, grant applications, and contract deliverables. These formal documents will be closely scrutinized for compliance. Here are some strategies with examples to help navigate these contexts.

Policy briefs and memos

When writing policy recommendations or issue briefs, lead with common ground values and outcomes. Start with a statement like “Improving health outcomes for all residents is a core goal” rather than “Promoting health equity is our goal.” You can still address specific barriers in the content but couch them in broadly palatable terms. If discussing a gap affecting a particular group, consider adding context that it affects the state or community as a whole (e.g. ,“While overall cancer rates are dropping, some communities are not seeing these gains, which impacts our state’s progress toward lower cancer mortality”). This way, you frame the disparity as a collective problem. In the analysis and recommendations, use conditional language that doesn’t sound like a mandate for quota or preference. Instead of “Allocate more funding to clinics serving Latinx populations,” say “Allocate more funding to clinics in areas with rising chronic disease rates” (if those areas happen to serve primarily Latinx populations, the effect is similar). Whenever possible, tie your recommendations to existing legislated priorities or bipartisan goals. If a state law calls for improving rural health, you can justify an intervention that also happens to benefit an immigrant community in a rural area under that rural health banner. Always anticipate the audience – if it’s a legislature that passed an anti-“woke” law, double-check that your brief isn’t unintentionally using any flagged phrases or concepts.

Grant and contract proposals

For those in NGOs or companies responding to RFPs, it’s crucial to read solicitations carefully for any new language requirements. Some RFPs now explicitly state that terms like “structural racism” or “intersectionality” should be avoided (or omit any mention of equity that used to be standard). Mirror the language of the funder. If the RFP talks about “underserved” but not “equity,” follow that lead. If it emphasizes “outreach” and “access” instead of “inclusion,” adjust your narrative accordingly. You can still demonstrate your understanding of the issues – do so in the funder’s terminology. Rather than saying, “We will apply a health equity framework to program design,” you might write, “We will apply a data-driven framework to target resources to areas of greatest need, ensuring all demographic groups can benefit.” This signals the same intent without tripping on banned lingo.

Also, focus on outcomes and deliverables rather than philosophy. Funders in this climate want to see practical results (e.g., the number of people served and the reduction in disease incidence), not an exposition of equity theory. Show that you can meet their objectives and still reach vulnerable populations by describing those populations in acceptable ways (e.g. by condition or location, not by race).

One pro-tip: include any required compliance statements proactively. If a state now prohibits certain training content, explicitly state that your proposal “will comply with [State] Law XYZ and all related executive orders.” This builds trust that you are aware of the rules. It’s possible to be fully compliant and still design an effective intervention – but you need to make the reviewer comfortable by speaking their compliance language.

Contract deliverables and reports

If you are working under a government contract, you may be asked to revise deliverables (reports, training materials, slide decks) to conform to new guidance. Approach this as an opportunity to educate through accepted frames. If a training on implicit bias is no longer allowed, perhaps reframe the training as “effective communication in healthcare” focusing on patient-provider communication skills. It can cover much of the same content (like listening to patients from different backgrounds) but without labeling it as a DEI initiative. Always run wording changes by the contracting officer if you’re unsure – they might have specific instructions on what to remove. Some contractors have reported being given “find-and-replace” tasks, such as removing all instances of “equity” from a document and replace with “equality” or removing “underserved” and using “economically disadvantaged.”

While this can feel like mere wordsmithing, take it seriously. Keep a checklist of terms your client has flagged and use that to QA your deliverables before submission. Additionally, maintain clear communication with your agency contact. Confirm that your reframed approach still meets their needs. Often program staff want you to achieve the same outcomes, they just need the paperwork to pass muster with higher-ups. By working together on language tweaks, you can satisfy the compliance reviewers while delivering substance.

Messaging to partners

Don’t forget that while you’re rephrasing upwards (to funders and officials), you may need to explain these changes to community partners on the ground. Community organizations you work with might notice the sudden absence of words like “health equity” in your materials and be concerned. It’s wise to proactively communicate (as much as you are able) why language is changing.

If you send out a newsletter or host a meeting with local health advocates, you might say: “Due to recent state guidance, our department is updating some terminology. But rest assured, our commitment to improving health for those who need it most isn’t changing.” You don’t have to get political or detail the law; just affirm that the mission continues. This helps maintain trust with communities who depend on these programs. Partners will appreciate knowing that “access for all” means you’re still trying to reach minorities, immigrants, people with disabilities, etc., even if you’re not naming them outright in documents. In some cases, partners themselves might adopt the new terminology in solidarity, which can create a unified front. The important thing is that everyone understands that a change in wording doesn’t signal abandonment of the cause. It’s a strategic adaptation to keep the work going.

Broader Implications and Looking Ahead

Adapting to DEIA language restrictions is now a day-to-day reality for many in public health, and it requires vigilance and creativity. In the long run, these mandates carry broader implications that professionals should keep in mind.

Impact on health outcomes

By forcing public health practitioners to tiptoe around issues of race, gender, and inequality, there is a serious risk that some problems will be neglected. Health disparities that aren’t explicitly addressed may persist or worsen. Some experts caution that removing the focus on DEI will “likely lead to widening disparities in health…and reverse prior efforts” to close gaps.​ This is a paradox for policymakers who claim to uphold “equal” treatment – ignoring unequal outcomes can make them more entrenched. Public health professionals may need to find new ways to monitor and highlight these outcomes (perhaps through external partners or academic publications less constrained by government policy) so that critical gaps don’t fall off the radar.

Strain on federal-state-local partnerships

We could see a patchwork effect where some states or localities quietly continue equity-oriented work (under different guises) while others halt it completely. This uneven approach might widen geographic inequities. For instance, a CDC project on reducing HIV in LGBTQ communities might be embraced in one state but rejected in another that has anti-“sexual orientation” language rules. Coordination between agencies becomes tricky – federal staff have been instructed to avoid even mentioning certain words to state counterparts.

As a policy professional, be prepared for friction or confusion in multi-level collaborations. It might fall to you to translate or mediate, e.g., rephrasing a CDC recommendation into language your state will accept. On the flip side, local health departments in more progressive areas might push back, creating tension with state leadership. Awareness and empathy for each level’s constraints will be important to keep partnerships working. Everyone still wants healthier communities; the challenge is aligning methods under divergent political rules.

Legal and political shifts over time

The current restrictions are largely born of specific political ideologies and executive actions. They are not static. Lawsuits have already led to injunctions (like blocking parts of the federal order that would cut existing funds​) and more litigation is ongoing. A new Congress or administration could reverse federal policies again, just as the 2025 order reversed the 2021 equity orders​. State laws might be challenged in courts or modified by future legislatures. In short, stay nimble and informed. Keep an eye on legal developments that may ease or tighten these rules. If you work in a government setting, ensure your compliance officers or legal counsel keep you updated on what language is absolutely forbidden versus what is cautionary. It’s possible that certain terms might be re-allowed if a court strikes down part of a mandate. Being on top of these changes means you can adjust your communications strategy accordingly and perhaps become a resource for your colleagues. In the meantime, document the impact these restrictions are having – this information could be useful for advocacy to change the policies down the line.

Ethical considerations and staff morale

Many public health professionals entered the field with a commitment to health equity and social justice. Navigating a work environment where saying those words can jeopardize your program is undoubtedly demoralizing. A big-picture implication is the potential loss of talent or motivation in the public health workforce. Practitioners may feel they are being asked to compromise their values or scientific integrity. To mitigate this, leaders and managers should openly acknowledge the difficulty and emphasize the why of these adjustments (to keep serving communities). Internally, create space for staff to discuss and vent frustrations, then focus on what can still be done. Ethically, continue to advocate for your populations in need – just do it smartly. Some practitioners might choose to partner with external allies (like nonprofits or academic institutions) that can speak more freely about inequities, thereby indirectly supporting the cause without violating rules themselves. Maintaining morale is crucial. Celebrate wins where you successfully reframed a proposal and got it funded or where a program quietly met its targets for reaching vulnerable groups despite never saying “equity.” Remind the team that the mission of public health – to improve population health and reduce harm – ultimately aligns with serving those in greatest need, even if the terminology du jour is different.

Key Takeaways for Public Health Professionals

• Know the Rules, But Don’t Lose the Purpose: Understand your jurisdiction’s specific DEIA language restrictions so you can comply (e.g., banned words, required approvals) – yet find ways to continue addressing the underlying health issues. Compliance is a constraint, not your mission.
• Reframe, Don’t Retreat: Proactively adjust your language in grants, policies, and reports using neutral terms and universal frames (access for all, needs-based resource allocation). Reframing is a tactical retreat on wording that allows you to keep making strategic advances on health equity goals.
• Be Data-Driven (or data-informed) and Objective: Let data on health needs guide your case for programs and present it objectively. Hard numbers about gaps speak loudly, even if you don’t label them “inequities.” Use evidence to justify the targeting of interventions without invoking identity politics.
• Collaborate and Share Strategies: Work with peers in other agencies or states to share what language passes muster. If you discover a great phrase (like “high-risk communities”) that resonates with funders as a stand-in for “priority populations,” spread the word. We’re all learning this new vocabulary together.
• Preserve Community Trust: Find ways to reassure communities that you serve that despite the jargon change, you remain committed to them. Authentic engagement and consistency in services will show that “inclusive, equitable practice” is still happening (even if you call it something else when reporting up the chain).
• Keep an Eye on Outcomes: Finally, track the impact of these mandates. If certain health outcomes start to slip because, say, a focus on a minority group was dropped, document that. It may provide a powerful argument in the future for why explicit attention to inequities is necessary. In the meantime, do your best to prevent backsliding by continuing the work under the radar.

Adapting to DEIA language restrictions is undeniably challenging – it can feel like speaking in code or navigating without being able to name your destination. Yet, public health practitioners are nothing if not resilient and resourceful. By staying informed, flexible, and true to the intent of our work, we can continue to make progress. The terminology may shift, but our commitment to improving health for everyone remains steadfast. In time, one hopes that demonstrating positive outcomes and maintaining professional integrity will outshine the political headwinds. Until then, use this guide as a starting point to operate effectively within the new rules. Your work still matters – perhaps now more than ever – and with careful communication strategies, it can endure and succeed despite the constraints.

Sources

• Kaiser Family Foundation – Implications of Eliminating Federal Diversity Initiatives on Health Equity kff.org​
• The White House – Executive Order on Ending DEI Programs (Jan 2025)​ whitehouse.gov​
• Goodwin Law – Summary of Executive Order Mandating Termination of DEI Contracts​ goodwinlaw.com​
• Reuters – CDC Pulls Back Papers to Comply with DEI Language Order ​reuters.com​
• KFF – Federal Health Data Taken Offline Amid DEI Restrictions​ kff.org​
• Associated Press – W.Va. Governor Bans DEI Initiatives in State Agencies ​apnews.com​
• Inside Higher Ed – “Are DEI Office Name Changes Enough?” ​insidehighered.com​
• PLOS – Health care as the new battlefront for anti-DEI attacks ​pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• PBS NewsHour/AP – Pentagon defends DEI purge of webpages ​pbs.org (analogy in federal context)

Act Now – Public Health Can’t Wait!

The future of public health is being shaped right now. Stay informed with weekly expert insights and take action where it matters most. Subscribe for free today!
📢 Time is critical! Share this blog now and rally others to join the movement.