Trumpenomics vs. Inclusionomics: A Framework for Reflection

“‘Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph’” (Exodus 1:8). Readers familiar with the Old Testament will know this passage marked a profound reversal of fortunes for the children of Israel. Joseph, a Hebrew, had risen to prominence in Egypt as second-in-command to Pharaoh guided Egypt through a devastating famine. Under his stewardship, Egypt not only survived but thrived, and Joseph’s family—the Israelites—were welcomed into the land. This era was characterised by trust, co-operation, and mutual benefit between the Israelites and the Egyptians.

?

The accession of the unnamed Pharaoh ushered in a significant political and cultural shift. This Pharaoh “did not know Joseph,” meaning he either disregarded Joseph’s legacy or deliberately erased it. What had been an era of inclusion, equity, and mutual prosperity was swept aside. The new Pharaoh viewed the growing Israelite population as a threat to Egypt’s homeland security, fearing they might align with Egypt’s enemies in times of conflict. In response, he implemented oppressive policies: forced labour, and ultimately, the decree to kill every male Israelite child—a brutal strategy to suppress their growth and influence.

?

If you’re still reading—thank you. As the subtitle suggests, this article is A Framework for Reflection, but, if I haven’t done so already, let me put my cards face up on the table. I have the privilege of leading a company called ENOLLA Consulting, and the name is no accident. ENOLLA, read backwards, spells ALL-ONE—a philosophy that lies at the heart of everything we do. I’m also an advocate of what I call loving leadership. This isn’t about loving the role of being a leader but about leading with love—an approach grounded in trust, care, and inclusion. On this point, I am unashamedly biased, and it shapes the perspective I bring to this conversation.

?

Today, we see echoes of this shift in the contrast between Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, built on inclusion and equality, and Donald Trump’s rise, marked by exclusionary rhetoric and the dismantling of DEI efforts. As the new President’s policies disregard the benefits of inclusion in favour of division, we are left to ask: will we build on the contributions of the many or erase them for the benefit of a few?

?

The first days of Donald Trump’s second term have left commentators reeling—in my world of work among the Day One slew of executive orders was the order Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing order, which revoked President Biden’s Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. It has left many—myself included—dismayed.

?

For those who haven’t read the details, the order states:

?

“The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government. The injection of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) into our institutions has corrupted them by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy… To commence the policies that will make our Nation united, fair, safe, and prosperous again, it is the policy of the United States to restore common sense to the Federal Government and unleash the potential of the American citizen.”

?

It’s hard not to read this without a sense of foreboding. To me, it feels like the thin end of a very thick wedge.? But it is the ignorance of inclusion’s true meaning and its alchemic properties that is staggering. Trump’s emphatic declaration that “Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect” is something I wholeheartedly agree with—the risible irony is that this is exactly what inclusion does. In an inclusive ecosystem, we all become greater, not smaller.

?

Let’s be honest—long before Trump 1.0, let alone 2.0, the conflation of diversity and inclusion was already a problem. Diversity is not inclusion any more than equality is equity, any more than following is leading. The plain truth is that treating these words as interchangeable—even without the rabid accelerant of Donald Trump—would have brought us to an approximation of this moment. Why? Because while diversity means “difference” to you and me, to others it has come to mean “not like me”—not White, not Christian, not from around here. It’s been framed as a zero-sum game: more for them means less for me.

?

While practitioners have worked hard to promote diversity, they’ve not always done enough to show that inclusion is nota zero-sum game. If diversity is about “some of them,” inclusion is about “all of us”—including those who fear that diversity equals their exclusion.

?

Should some DEI programs be retired? Perhaps—probably. In my article for People Management (March 2024) entitled “EDI: Where Do We Go From Here?”, I wrote: “It is, however, important to acknowledge that some people believe EDI efforts hurt them. Forced to attend mandatory, remedial and unsafe ASBO EDI training programmes has almost certainly done more harm than good.” But let’s be crystal clear: what we will be left with is not meritocracy. That’s naive. What we’ll be left with is mirrortocracy.

?

Trumpenomics vs. Inclusionomics

?

America’s ideological sneeze risks spreading a cold of regression—legitimising exclusionary policies, stalling progress, and reinforcing the false notions about. But just as exclusion can spread, so can its antidote. If Trumpenomics thrives on division, Inclusionomics offers immunity—demonstrating that true prosperity isn’t built by narrowing the circle, but by widening it.

?

This brings us to the fundamental contrast between Trumpenomics and Inclusionomics. Trumpenomics, and its wannabe lookalikes, thrive on fear—framing difference as a threat and retreating into an exclusionary model that prioritises a few at the expense of many. It sells a vision of prosperity rooted in nostalgia for an age that never existed.

?

Societally, Trumpenomics epitomises being penny wise and pound foolish. By dismantling [helpful] diversity and inclusion initiatives to achieve perceived short-term savings, it overlooks the long-term costs—lost innovation, diminished competitiveness, and deeper societal divisions. It prioritises immediate gains at the expense of future growth, ignoring the fact that inclusive practices are proven to strengthen economic resilience and foster creativity.

?

In contrast, Inclusionomics is the ‘pound-wise’ approach. It views inclusion not as an expense but as an investment—one that drives sustainable growth, unlocks untapped potential, and creates a more cohesive and prosperous society. Where Trumpenomics divides, Inclusionomics builds, demonstrating that the prosperity of one depends on the flourishing of all.

?

Inclusionomics recognises that inclusion is not just a moral imperative but a strategic competitive advantage. It frames diversity not as a threat to stability but as the foundation of growth, resilience, and innovation. It sees the whole and knows that if one part is diminished, every part is diminished. Where Trumpenomics fractures, Inclusionomics unites—proving that shared prosperity is the only sustainable way forward.

?

The question is not just which model will dominate in this political moment, but which will shape our collective future. Will we build a system that thrives on mutual benefit, or one that collapses under the weight of fear and exclusion?

?

The election of Donald Trump is a watershed moment in understanding the future of inclusion. It has exposed deep societal divides but also presents an opportunity to reassess what inclusion truly means in a rapidly changing world. The challenge now is whether we will take the path of fear or embrace the power of belonging.?? “If the goal is to truly make America great again, then its relentless and ruthless ambition should be inclusion—and inclusion’s bellwether? Now that would be something to be rightly proud of, boys.”