Page Conversation Replay: Communicating DEI in 2026

In this Page Conversation, Bradley Akubuiro led a candid discussion on how the DEI landscape is being reshaped by heightened enforcement risk, coordinated activist pressure, and increasingly polarized language—and what that means for senior communications leaders navigating trust, compliance, and credibility.

Watch Bradley’s insights from the conversation below, then dive into the takeaways and actionable guidance you can apply in your organization.

What’s going on: 

1. DEI communication carries real legal risk

Enforcement risk has increased sharply, particularly for federal contractors and regulated organizations. The reinterpretation of the False Claims Act, combined with whistleblower incentives, means DEI-related language, certifications, and internal materials can create litigation exposure—not just reputational risk.

2. “Small tweaks” are the dominant corporate response

Rather than rollbacks, most organizations are making targeted adjustments:

• Preserving inclusion work
• Reducing public visibility
• Shifting language away from “DEI” or “equity” toward “inclusion,” “belonging,” or “culture”

3. Public support is strong—but labels matter

Roughly 69% of adults support corporate diversity efforts, yet the term “DEI” has become polarizing. About 80% of leaders are rebranding programs while maintaining the underlying intent. Framing increasingly determines credibility.

4. Exposure varies widely by sector and business model

Risk is highest for federal contractors, regulated industries, and grant-funded organizations. Consumer brands face boycott dynamics, though some report that clear, consistent stances deter opportunistic activist pressure.

5. Anti-DEI pressure is now organized and institutional

Activist efforts have evolved into coordinated policy, media, and proxy strategies. While shareholder proposals to ban DEI largely failed, persistent pressure continues to shape corporate behavior.

6. Trust depends on consistency, not visibility

Frequent shifts, vague language, or perceived retreat undermine credibility. Organizations that clearly define their position, and communicate it consistently, are better positioned to maintain trust under pressure.

What you can do: 

• Risk-map your DEI communications footprint: Assess federal/state exposure, visibility, and audience sensitivity. Prioritize low-visibility, high-alignment actions and prepare for whistleblower/FCA contingencies.

• Define what DEI means for your organization: Frame programs as inclusion, belonging, and culture initiatives tied to business purpose. Precision reduces misinterpretation and risk.

• Align language across legal, HR, and communications teams: Ensure public statements, internal toolkits, certifications, and filings are consistent. Discrepancies create vulnerability, especially under whistleblower scrutiny.

• Shift emphasis from campaigns to systems: Highlight operational inclusion embedded in business processes (hiring practices, leadership development, performance systems) rather than high-profile initiatives or slogans.

• Use leaders as internal signalers: Town halls, manager toolkits, and direct employee communications matter more than external messaging. Employees assess authenticity through what leaders say inside the organization.

• Prepare for localization, not uniformity: For multi-jurisdiction organizations, develop region-specific language and participation guidelines that reflect legal and cultural realities while preserving core values.

Go deeper: Check out the slides from the conversation, here.