Could the Trump Administration Demand Brands Reject DEI?
Letters from U.S. embassies to international suppliers raise the possibility that outfitters of the U.S.’ public image could be next, challenging existing pledges
In ‘What Matters’, Matter shares its insight on the most pressing culture and consumer behaviour shifts it is analysing in its strategic output which will impact luxury in the near-to-middle term. We conclude with ‘Dark Matter’, a weekly look at the strange, curious, and disconcerting news that will influence the evolution of our industry.
This week: could the Trump administration demand non-compliance with DEI practices from the outfitters of the U.S. and its representatives’ public image?
Last week, among others, the American Embassy to France sent a short letter to the French and European companies that supply it, stating: “Executive Order 14173, ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunities, signed by President Trump, applies to all suppliers and service providers for the US government, regardless of their nationality or the country in which they operate”. Italian businesses received a similar letter. As did businesses in Switzerland, and a number of other European countries.
The ministry of the economy in France released a statement in response to the letter, stating: “This practice reflects the values of the new American government. They are not ours.” However, a number of private entities have acquiesced to the government’s demands.
Acquiescence Already
U.S. government supplier companies, such as Accenture, have rolled back their DEI targets on a global level. Deloitte told U.S. employees working with government clients to remove pronouns from their email signature.
Through a textile and fashion lens, most U.S. government suppliers are uniform providers for the military and other staffing needs. At present, certified suppliers would include Standard Textile, Venus Group, and Milliken & Company. Uniform suppliers for U.S. embassies are not made public, but any entity that is party to a contract to supply clothing to the U.S. government would fall into this category. Indeed, American brands with no ties to the government such as Victoria’s Secret are removing targets entirely.
For the luxury industry, the question becomes whether the administration will seek compliance with its stance on DEI from companies that are associated with the image of the U.S. — beyond uniforms — when it is broadcast on the global stage.
Outfitters of America’s Image
Though Team U.S.A.’s costs are actually funded through private sources and sponsorships, as the official Olympics outfitter, Ralph Lauren is synonymous with the U.S.'s global image. The first lady also chose Ralph Lauren to attend President Trump’s first inauguration. This time around, the First Lady chose to wear New York designer Adam Lippes to the inauguration, with a hat by Eric Javits. But Melania Trump regularly wears many of the biggest luxury designer brands. She wore Christian Dior during President Trump’s address at the joint session of Congress in March 2025. She also wore a black Christian Dior cape-coat to a wreath laying ceremony earlier this year in January. Alternatively, Ivanka Trump wore Givenchy during President Trump’s Liberty Ball, having changed out of the forest green Christian Dior skirt suit she was wearing earlier that day.
Is this sufficient to create an expectation of alignment?
Bernard Arnault and his daughters attended the inauguration, but is Christian Dior, for example, willing to withdraw from their DEI policies? Would this include the Women@Dior programme with UNESCO, which supports young women in navigating the early stages of their careers? Similarly, at the beginning of 2024, LVMH released a series of “inspiring and moving portraits of the Group’s talented people”, It's Everyone's Business, celebrating its vision of corporate culture that is "diverse by essence and inclusive by choice".
Data compiled by McKinsey and The Outsiders Perspective in collaboration with the BFC found that more than 70% of businesses in the European fashion industry have a formal strategy to drive inclusion and encourage representation of minority groups in place.
Image Obsessed
Beyond internal policies, what about the public image fashion pays billions of dollars to disseminate all over the world and into every corner of the internet?
For over a decade now, luxury brands have slowly increased the representation of cohorts of global consumers traditionally underrepresented in advertising, increasing the number of Black, Asian, Latinx and Indigenous peoples featured to a small degree. Campaigns, shows, events and activations, were for a short time increasingly if never proportionately populated with a curated mix of intentionally diverse attendees.
However, on the runways, racial diversity has already plateaued. A 2024 report by the British Fashion Council found that while representation of models of colour had increased in past seasons, it has now leveled off. Representation of models with disabilities remains disproportionately low. Trends that are now more likely to perpetuate.
But what proportion of representation of a global consumer base would be consistent with the current U.S. administration’s perspective?
The Opposite of a Lawn Sale
Thus far, tariffs proposed by the U.S. administration have focused on national exports, targeting raw materials or entire industries like automotive manufacturers. However, some companies could be caught in the crosshairs of the ongoing tariff escalation.
Harley Davidson motorcycles have made headlines. As the Wall Street Journal reports, if the European Union imposes a 50% retaliatory tariff on the company’s motorcycles, prices could reach “astounding heights” in its second-largest market. The Road Glide touring model’s Danish price tag is around $77,000, once the country’s 25% value-added tax and 150% luxury tax are added. The proposed new EU tariff would take its price to $124,000. Proponents argue it will disproportionately impact Trump-voting red states.
Champagne has been mooted as a potential subject of a 200% tariff: “A 200% tariff is designed to make sure that no Champagne will be shipped to the United States,” Calvin Boucher, a manager at Michel Gonetis told The New York Times. LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennesy) of course owns Moët & Chandon, the world’s largest producer of champagne with an estimated 30 million bottles sold each year. The company also owns Ruinart, Krug, Dom Pérignon, and more. The NYT reports its holdings represent an estimated 30% of the U.S. market.
To date, in its second term, the administration’s most reported relationship to a commercial entity is its explicit support of Tesla, in particular its classification of vandalism against Tesla cars as a hate crime and the President’s decision to buy a red model and display it at the White House.
But the reverse of such support is also a distinct possibility. In the past, specific media entities have suffered the ire of President Trump, namely The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the BBC, and others. He has critiqued General Motors and Ford for closing U.S. manufacturing plants. Additionally he made public comments against Nike’s Colin Kaepernick campaign, and Goodyear for banning employees from wearing MAGA hats.
Much of the European luxury industry could be targeted through specific and siloed measures if desired — down to an individual company or brand. Current interpretations of the law dictate the impact on U.S. brands that refused to comply would be limited to vociferous criticism in the media and any resulting boycotts.
‘Liberation Day’?
As the impact of ‘Liberation Day’ and its tariffs begin to be better understood over the coming weeks, the worsening performance of the U.S. economy and the negative impact on consumer confidence in the market were already clear.
Entering 2025, the U.S. market was an almost unique pocket of scaled opportunity relevant to the fashion and luxury industries. It was the focal point of most commercial strategies for businesses that were present in the market or could increase exposure to it. That economic thinking is no longer as pertinent, as inflation stubbornly persists, consumer confidence dips and inequality increases.
With $38 trillion shares held by American households and non-profits, which is more than twice the historical average and near the highest level since records began in 1947, “a prolonged stock market slump would have profound implications for both politics and the economy,” writes The Economist.
For now, businesses must balance the opportunity in being deemed acquiescent to President Trump and his cabinet’s goals, with the risk such association could create with global consumer cohorts that are not aligned with that worldview. The stumbling performance of the American economy could make that decision easy even for the pragmatists.
Dark Matter
Studio Ghibli and Instant Regret
In a 2016 documentary, the co-founder of Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki, called A.I. “an insult to life itself”. Almost ten years later, the Ghibli aesthetic is being recreated in seconds by the latest Chat-GPT update.
“When President Donald Trump's announced a proposal to "take over" the Gaza Strip last month, Solo Avital and his partner created an AI video intended as satire. Weeks later, the president himself shared the video on Truth Social platform.” Its creator shares his regret here– BBC
IP is now reproducible – especially IP with an inherently re-creatable aesthetic. This started with the Harry Potter Balenciaga video and the Wes Anderson trend.
But no one controls IP anymore. Now, recognisable aesthetics are a potential source of risk for brands – the more iconic, the more reproducible. Fascist ideology in any brand of their choosing is now a few mid-journey or any GAN prompts away.
“Although no one ideology has a monopoly on AI art, the high-resolution, low-budget look of generative-AI images appears to be fusing with the meme-loving aesthetic of the MAGA movement. At least in the fever swamps of social media, AI art is becoming MAGA-coded. The GOP is becoming the party of AI slop.” – The Atlantic
IRL in 2020, alt-right group the Proud Boys adopted Fred Perry’s yellow and black polo as their uniform. Fred Perry pulled the product from the shelves to mitigate the association. – The Guardian
Brands might be able to pull product – but that’s not possible with imagery.
Although blacks are scapegoated as the face of DEI, white women benefit more than any other demographic.
https://shorturl.at/n1frY