Tag
Government actions or policies that treat individuals or groups differently based on race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or other protected characteristics. Prohibited under the Equal Protection Clause and international human rights law.
4 incidents
Grade 3 of 5: Serious Rights Violation
A sweeping expansion of travel restrictions targeting predominantly Muslim-majority and African nations, growing from the original first-term ban to cover 39 countries. The bans affect millions of people and have been widely characterized as religious and racial discrimination codified into immigration policy.
Grade 2 of 5: Major Abuse of Power
Executive Order 14151 directed elimination of all federal DEI programs. DOGE implemented a three-phase purge, firing thousands of workers — including many who had no current DEI role — and in later court depositions DOGE staffers described using ChatGPT to flag humanities grants as DEI. A December 2025 class-action lawsuit alleges the purge targeted minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ employees.
Grade 3 of 5: Serious Rights Violation
Trump's tweet announcing the transgender military ban was not coordinated with military leadership. The Joint Chiefs issued an unusual public statement saying they would not change policy until they received 'formal guidance.' Multiple federal courts issued injunctions blocking the original ban. After losing court cases, the administration issued a modified 'Mattis plan' that imposed restrictions based on gender dysphoria treatment; it was implemented in 2019 and reversed by Biden in 2021. An estimated 14,700 transgender people were serving in the military.
Grade 3 of 5: Serious Rights Violation
The travel ban evolved through three executive orders as earlier versions were blocked by courts for discriminatory purpose and due process violations. The third version added non-Muslim-majority countries to provide legal cover, and was upheld by the Supreme Court 5-4 in June 2018. The Court's majority assumed it could look behind the proclamation but applied only deferential rational-basis review, under which the national-security justification sufficed despite Trump's public statements calling for a Muslim ban; Sotomayor's dissent quoted those statements at length and compared the ruling to Korematsu v. United States.