A surprise shift in the public optics of DEI programs is rippling through the U.S. consulting and auditing sector. KPMG’s U.S. arm has stopped posting annual progress reports on its internal diversity program, a change that comes after years of publicizing gains in hiring women and minorities at the start of each year. The move occurred in February 2025, just after the inauguration of the new U.S. president, Donald Trump. Industry observers quickly interpreted the step as a direct response to the new administration’s stance, with some labeling it a retreat or “caving.” KPMG US declined to comment on the matter. The development underscores a broader reckoning within the sector as high-profile firms grapple with political headwinds and shifting public expectations around diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Background and timeline
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have long been a staple of major consulting and auditing firms. For years, firms have constructed public narratives around DEI initiatives designed to broaden the representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities in leadership and other critical roles. A central part of that narrative has been transparent progress reporting. Since 2020, KPMG’s U.S. site consistently featured annual updates detailing the progress achieved in increasing the proportion of women and minorities across various levels of the firm. These reports were not merely cosmetic; they served as a metric by which the firm could demonstrate accountability to clients, employees, and the broader public. They framed the firm as a responsible corporate citizen with a proactive strategy for creating a more diverse and inclusive workplace.
The sudden change in February 2025 marks a notable departure from that practice. The timing is particularly salient: it followed the inauguration of Donald Trump as U.S. president, a development the industry has read as a signal that the political climate would become less conducive to public emphasis on DEI metrics. In the months leading up to this shift, industry chatter and media reporting had already pointed to a growing tension between DEI advocacy and the prevailing political winds in Washington. The alteration at KPMG US’s website—removing the DEI progress reports from the firm’s public-facing portal—therefore sits at the intersection of corporate strategy, reputational management, and public policy. It raises questions about what executives view as sustainable disclosures in an era of heightened political scrutiny of diversity initiatives.
KPMG US’s decision not to comment publicly adds another layer of complexity to the story. Without an official statement, observers are left to interpret the move through circumstantial evidence and the broader tone coming from the leadership of the firm. In parallel, other industry players have publicly signaled recalibrations of their own DEI projects, suggesting a broader shift rather than an isolated reaction. The narrative is further complicated by analyses and investigations from business media outlets that have highlighted the financial and strategic calculations behind these moves. The juxtaposition of a long-standing public commitment to DEI reporting with a rapid retreat from that practice underscores the volatility faced by firms attempting to balance social objectives with the realities of political and economic change.
In this context, Handelsblatt—a major German business publication—has reported that the changes reflect hard business calculations rather than purely symbolic gestures. This framing emphasizes that DEI initiatives, while often politically popular or institutionally expected, are also subject to cost-benefit considerations, especially in areas involving government contracting, client expectations, and internal resource allocation. The February 2025 pivot therefore appears as a milestone in a broader trend in which firms reassess the visibility and scope of their DEI commitments in the face of a shifting political and economic environment. The narrative is not limited to a single firm or market; it resonates across the professional services sector as firms reassess how, where, and to what extent they publicly articulate and measure their DEI progress.
As the industry digests these developments, attention has turned to the spectrum of possible explanations. Some observers argue that the move signals a broader retrenchment from public DEI commitments in the United States, while others see it as a tactical adjustment aimed at aligning messaging with new leadership priorities and regulatory or political sensitivities. Regardless of the precise motive, the core implication is that public reporting on DEI progress—once a central element of corporate accountability and branding—may be subject to greater scrutiny or even reduced emphasis in the near term. The phenomenon invites broader questions about how firms can maintain commitments to diversity and inclusion while navigating a political terrain that is increasingly skeptical of or hostile toward such public dashboards. The outcome for KPMG US and its peers will likely influence future reporting norms, the design of internal diversity initiatives, and the way in which firms communicate performance and accountability to stakeholders in a volatile policy environment.
Industry reactions and interpretations
The immediate industry reaction to KPMG US’s de-emphasis of public DEI progress reporting has been mixed and highly interpretive. In the wake of the move, many observers characterized it as a direct response to the Trump administration’s stance on DEI initiatives, with some commentators labeling the action as “caving.” The interpretive frame here centers on the political risk associated with public DEI disclosures, particularly for firms that regularly interface with government clients and are subject to public sector procurement criteria that auditors and consultants must understand and address. The perception of a retreat from DEI transparency is significant because it touches on the reputational calculus that governs client trust, talent acquisition, and the ability to attract and retain experienced professionals who value inclusive workplaces. It is not simply about optics; it involves a recalibration of how firms narrate their internal culture, how they measure success, and how they allocate resources to diversity-related programs under changing political expectations.
KPMG US’s decision to refrain from commenting publicly leaves a gap in the public record, inviting speculation about the firm’s reasoning and future direction. In such cases, stakeholders often rely on indirect signals, policy shifts within the firm, and actions taken in other parts of the organization or in other markets to infer intent. The absence of a formal statement might also be interpreted as a desire to avoid fueling ongoing political debates around DEI, or as a pragmatic choice to reframe its public disclosures in a way that aligns with revised strategic priorities. The lack of a comment, however, can generate ambiguity about the firm’s stance on DEI and about whether the internal programs themselves are being de-emphasized or merely retooled in a manner that is less transparent to the public.
Industry responses have extended beyond KPMG to other leading players in the U.S. market. Accenture and Deloitte—two of the largest consulting firms with extensive DEI programs and ambitious public commitments—have reportedly begun to adjust or backpedal in their own DEI initiatives in the American market. While specific details vary, the trend signals a shared recalibration across a sector that has long positioned itself as a proponent of inclusive leadership and equitable opportunity. The adjustments are framed by executives and commentators as pragmatic responses to a possibly shifting environment in which political leadership is less supportive of mandatory or highly publicized DEI benchmarks. The characteristic tension here is between societal expectations for inclusive corporate practices and the political acceptability of those practices within a given policy and market context.
From a strategic perspective, the backpedaling or recalibration of DEI programs by these firms is explained by several layers of calculation. On the surface, firms argue that they must balance social objectives with the commercial realities of a competitive market, especially where public sector engagements and large contracts with government entities are involved. The more nuanced argument—widely reported by business commentators and supported by internal strategic analyses—points to the need to demonstrate tangible business value from DEI initiatives. In other words, firms are evaluating whether the public metrics used to demonstrate progress translate into concrete outcomes for clients, productivity, retention, and long-term profitability. This line of reasoning intersects with political considerations and the potential for counterproductive political backlash against publicly posted diversity dashboards. The result is a complex calculus that weighs reputational risk, client expectations, regulatory or procurement risk, and internal talent management against the perceived benefits of public DEI disclosures.
Handelsblatt’s investigative reporting has underscored another dimension of this dynamic: the government contracting pipeline and the explicit demand from many government clients for detailed justification of continued engagement with consulting services. The implication is that, beyond internal corporate culture and public relations, firms must be prepared to justify their continued involvement with government work in a climate where political leadership questions the value or fairness of such engagements. In practical terms, this means that consultants and auditors may be required to present robust case studies, performance metrics, and ROI analyses to demonstrate the ongoing relevance and impact of their work. If DEI-related public metrics become less central to the firm’s external narrative, firms will still need to articulate the value of their services in terms that resonate with clients and policymakers, including the measurable impacts of their advisory and auditing work.
The broader industry implications are significant. If more firms follow the path of reducing or restructuring publicly visible DEI reporting, the market could see a shift in how talent is attracted and retained, how client relationships are managed, and how vendors for public sector work are evaluated. It also raises questions about whether private, non-public DEI programs will continue to operate with the same intensity or whether capacity, funding, and leadership attention will be redirected toward internal inclusion efforts that are less visible to external audiences but essential for sustained cultural change. The balance between public accountability and internal strategy becomes a central theme in corporate governance and risk management as firms navigate this evolving landscape.
With this backdrop, industry observers have begun to consider what this may portend for the near term. A potential consequence is a slowdown or reorientation of DEI initiatives in the U.S. market, particularly those that had relied heavily on public dashboards and external communications to demonstrate progress. Another potential outcome is a push toward private reporting frameworks or alternative metrics that satisfy internal leadership and client needs without triggering broader political contention. In parallel, firms may seek to diversify their approaches to inclusive leadership—prioritizing talent development programs, mentorship, sponsorship, and accountability mechanisms that can deliver measurable outcomes without generating the same public-facing visibility that previously accompanied DEI progress reports. The net effect could be a more nuanced, perhaps more internally focused, strategy for building diverse leadership pipelines and inclusive cultures, even as public-facing progress narratives become more selective or less frequent.
Business calculations and public procurement implications
The discourse surrounding the shifts in DEI reporting also hinges on concrete business calculations that firms invoke when shaping their external communications and internal priorities. The most salient argument, as echoed by Handelsblatt’s investigations, is that many consultants and auditors are engaged by the U.S. government or by entities that rely on public procurement channels for revenue. In such contexts, there is a demand for clear, demonstrable value—what the industry often frames as return on investment (ROI)—from any ongoing collaboration. When public DEI dashboards are seen as politically risky or as potentially misaligned with the current administration’s policy preferences, firms may reassess whether the public display of progress is worth the cost—in terms of time, messaging, and potential misinterpretation or politicization of data.
This line of reasoning does not suggest that firms abandon their diversity commitments; rather, it indicates a reevaluation of how progress is measured, reported, and communicated. In some cases, firms may continue to pursue DEI objectives through internal programs, leadership development, and talent pipelines without the same level of external visibility. The idea is to maintain momentum on inclusion while reducing exposure to political scrutiny or PR backlash that can accompany public reporting. In addition, when firms consider government contracts and high-stakes advisory engagements, they must assess whether public disclosures around DEI progress could influence procurement decisions or client sentiment. If a contracting agency asks for a different kind of evidence—such as client outcomes, project success rates, or direct metrics tied to performance and impact—the firm may adapt its reporting to align with those expectations while preserving core inclusion outcomes.
Another facet of the business calculus concerns the allocation of resources to DEI efforts. If leadership perceives that public metrics are not translating into tangible advantages in the market or in client procurement decisions, they may redirect resources toward internal development programs, inclusive leadership training, or inclusive governance structures that can yield measurable benefits in retention, performance, and innovation. The tension between public storytelling and internal capability-building becomes a critical decision point for firms that aim to sustain inclusive cultures and diverse leadership without exposing themselves to political or reputational risk. In this framework, the business case for DEI remains intact—diversity is linked to better decision-making, broadened client perspectives, and improved organizational resilience—but the preferred avenue for realizing and communicating those benefits evolves in line with external pressures and market conditions.
Within the broader market context, these strategic adjustments also interact with the dynamics of competition and client expectations. Firms that maintain highly visible DEI dashboards may attract talent who prize transparent, public commitments to inclusion, but they may also become targets for political attention or misinterpretation in shifting policy environments. Conversely, firms that emphasize private metrics and outcomes may safeguard themselves from public backlash while still pursuing meaningful inclusion goals. The crossroads at which the industry stands today is characterized by a delicate balance between accountability, transparency, client value, and the political risks associated with public reporting on DEI initiatives.
As this landscape continues to unfold, it will be important to monitor how different firms calibrate their external communications about DEI. Will there be a trend toward more private, impact-focused reporting, or will firms seek new, public-facing metrics that are less susceptible to political controversy but still provide credible evidence of progress? The answers will influence not only the reputation and competitiveness of individual firms but also the broader social impact of corporate inclusion efforts across the sector. In short, the business calculations driving this shift are as much about protecting client relationships and preserving market access as they are about advancing diversity and inclusion within firms.
Global context and implications for Europe
The shifts in the U.S. market have reverberations beyond American borders, prompting consideration of how global professional services firms manage DEI narratives in different political and cultural environments. The shifting U.S. stance toward public DEI reporting may influence global practice norms, with European arms of multinational firms weighing similar considerations about visibility, regulatory expectations, and stakeholder demand for inclusive leadership. In Europe, where labor markets and regulatory frameworks differ, firms may face a different calculus. The discourse around “DEI” remains prominent in many European markets, yet the political resonance, media environment, and public policy priorities can diverge from those in the United States. Firms operating across multiple regions must navigate a mosaic of expectations, ensuring that their inclusion efforts remain credible and coherent with local norms while maintaining a consistent global strategy.
The conversation about DEI reporting also intersects with broader economic and ideological debates that have gained traction in Europe. Concepts like the so-called “Neue asoziale Marktwirtschaft” (new socially charged market economy) have entered public discourse, challenging traditional narratives about how markets ought to operate in a way that is fair and inclusive. In this context, European stakeholders may reassess how corporate inclusion efforts are perceived, valued, and regulated. The potential for cross-border alignment or divergence in DEI strategies raises important questions for multinational firms: should they harmonize DEI reporting across regions to present a unified brand of inclusive leadership, or should they tailor their narratives to align with country-specific political climates and regulatory expectations? This tension has practical implications for platform design, performance measurement, talent management, and client service delivery in Europe and beyond.
From a strategic standpoint, European operations may observe several possible trajectories. Some firms may choose to preserve public DEI progress reporting in European markets where policy frameworks and public sentiment continue to support visible diversity metrics. Others might adopt a more nuanced approach, combining robust internal metrics with selective public disclosures that balance transparency with political and regulatory realities. Either way, European branches of global professional services firms will need to articulate clear value propositions surrounding diverse leadership, inclusive cultures, and measurable outcomes across client engagements. The cross-border dimension adds complexity but also the potential for knowledge sharing, best-practice sharing, and coordinated effort to advance inclusion in ways that are credible, accountable, and aligned with local expectations.
The industry’s global footprint means that moves in the U.S. market can influence client strategies, talent pipelines, and even regulatory considerations in other regions. If U.S. government procurement processes begin to demand more concrete outcomes from DEI-oriented engagements, European governments and institutions may respond with parallel benchmarks or alternative procurement criteria that reflect their own values and priorities. Conversely, a retreat from public DEI reporting in the United States could prompt European clients to scrutinize how multinational firms communicate progress and what they consider legitimate proof of impact. The net effect is a complex global dialogue about how to operationalize, measure, and communicate inclusion in ways that satisfy diverse stakeholder groups while maintaining organizational competitiveness.
In sum, the U.S. developments around DEI reporting are not isolated; they contribute to an ongoing global conversation about how corporate inclusion is defined, measured, and communicated in an era of fluctuating political acceptance and market conditions. Multinational firms must balance regional variations with a coherent, credible global strategy that honors the core objective of creating more diverse leadership and inclusive workplaces without compromising business integrity or client value. The European perspective adds nuance to this balancing act, offering opportunities for cross-regional collaboration and shared learning as the professional services field evolves in response to shifting political economies and societal expectations.
What comes next and the broader outlook
Looking ahead, several scenarios may unfold as firms recalibrate their DEI strategies and reporting practices in response to the current political and economic climate. One scenario envisions a tempered return to some form of public DEI transparency, albeit with redesigned dashboards and metrics that address concerns about political sensitivity while preserving the core objective of demonstrating progress toward greater inclusion. In this path, firms could retain robust internal DEI programs that deliver measurable outcomes and invest in governance structures that ensure accountability, while shifting some of the emphasis away from public dashboards toward more nuanced, outcome-driven reporting designed to withstand political scrutiny.
A second scenario anticipates a sustained reduction in public DEI disclosures, with firms maintaining internal commitments to diversity and inclusion but communicating them through private channels, client-focused case studies, and impact assessments that emphasize tangible results rather than public narratives. This trajectory would reflect a strategic decision to protect the integrity and utility of DEI efforts in a volatile political environment, while still delivering meaningful value to clients and employees through targeted inclusion initiatives. The third scenario envisions a reimagined approach that blends public accountability with flexible messaging. Firms could pursue public DEI content that highlights progress in leadership development, retention, and performance outcomes, while avoiding potentially contentious dashboards that invite misinterpretation or political backlash. In this model, DEI reporting remains a priority, but its form and cadence are adapted to maximize clarity, credibility, and impact.
Regardless of which scenario materializes, three enduring themes are likely to guide the evolution of DEI strategy in the professional services sector. First, the emphasis on measurable outcomes—rather than solely on input metrics—will gain prominence. Firms will increasingly seek to demonstrate how inclusive leadership translates into client value, improved decision-making, and innovation. Second, there will be continued attention to governance and accountability. Boards and executive leadership will be expected to articulate clear responsibilities for DEI outcomes and to connect them to broader business performance. Third, the alignment of DEI initiatives with client and market needs will be essential. Firms that can articulate a compelling, evidence-based value proposition for inclusion—one that resonates with clients, employees, and policymakers—are more likely to sustain momentum even in uncertain political climates.
The potential implications for global professional services ecosystems are substantial. If U.S. firms adjust their public DEI reporting practices, clients and talent in other regions may adapt their expectations accordingly, influencing regional strategies and investments. Multinational firms will need to craft coherent, regionally aware plans that still reflect a consistent commitment to inclusion as a driver of performance. This may involve developing more sophisticated measurement frameworks, alternative storytelling approaches tailored to different audiences, and flexible governance mechanisms that can endure political shifts without eroding the core benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce.
In practical terms, what firms do next will shape their reputations and competitive positioning. Firms that succeed in maintaining or enhancing inclusion outcomes while navigating political sensitivities will likely retain the trust of clients, employees, and regulators. Those that fail to articulate the value of their inclusion activities or that appear to retreat from public commitments may risk reputational and talent-related consequences. The industry will watch how KPMG US and its peers adjust their DEI strategies, reporting practices, and governance structures in the months ahead, and how those choices influence client decisions, procurement dynamics, and the broader movement toward inclusive leadership in the global economy.
Conclusion
The sudden removal of public DEI progress reports by KPMG US, timed closely with the inauguration of a new U.S. president, marks a pivotal moment for the professional services sector. The move is being interpreted in industry circles as a direct reaction to the political environment surrounding DEI initiatives, signaling a broader reassessment of how firms approach diversity, equity, and inclusion in a climate of increased scrutiny. While KPMG US has not offered an official explanation, the event sits within a wider pattern that includes Accenture and Deloitte adjusting their own DEI strategies in the United States, underscoring that the sector is navigating a delicate balance among social objectives, client expectations, and political realities.
The financial and procurement dimensions of this shift are equally significant. Reports from industry observers indicate that substantial business decisions—especially those tied to government contracting and the justification of continued engagement with public sector clients—require more rigorous demonstration of value and outcomes. This has led to a broader reassessment of how DEI programs are reported publicly versus how they are implemented and measured internally. The ultimate question is whether firms can maintain momentum toward more inclusive leadership and better representation while adapting their public narratives to a landscape where political acceptability and market demands may diverge.
Looking forward, the sector faces a choice between transparent public reporting and more private, outcomes-focused approaches to inclusion. The path chosen will influence not only corporate reputations but also talent recruitment, client relations, and the ability to deliver measurable value through DEI initiatives. As firms seek to reconcile their inclusion commitments with evolving political and economic conditions, Europe and other regions will be watching closely to see how global professional services players adapt their strategies across different markets. The coming months will reveal whether this moment represents a temporary recalibration or a longer-term shift in how the industry communicates, measures, and delivers the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion in a complex, hard-nosed business environment.
