A Tale of Two Civil Rights: How One Administration Amplified Protections for Some While Eroding Them for Others—A Violation of the 14th Amendment's Promise

The promise of equal protection under the law is a cornerstone of American democracy, enshrined in the powerful yet simple language of the 14th Amendment: "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

However, a close examination of the Trump administration's policies reveals a deeply contradictory approach to civil rights that, critics argue, undermines the very spirit and intent of the 14th Amendment. By selectively strengthening protections against discrimination for one group while simultaneously weakening the core tools used to combat systemic injustice for another, the administration created a profound dissonance in our national commitment to equality.

The Constitutional Contradiction

The heart of the contradiction lies in how the administration sought to define and enforce "equal protection":

1. Bolstering Antisemitism Protections: A Formalized Front

President Trump used Executive Orders to bolster enforcement against antisemitism by mandating the use of the controversial IHRA definition when applying Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This created a clear, federally backed mechanism for Jewish individuals to claim discrimination based on "shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics."

The Interpretation: This action was framed as consistent with the 14th Amendment's promise—that the government must actively protect all individuals against discrimination. It affirmed that historical and contemporary persecution (antisemitism and the Holocaust) warrants robust federal intervention.

2. Eroding Systemic Racism Tools: A Retreat from Equal Protection

In sharp contrast, the administration directly targeted the legal and educational tools designed to remedy the effects of centuries of systemic racism against Black Americans. These actions are viewed by civil rights groups as fundamentally contrary to the 14th Amendment's purpose—which was ratified after the Civil War specifically to ensure the rights and equality of formerly enslaved people.

The Attack on Disparate Impact (EO 14281): The attempt to eliminate disparate impact liability is the most direct legal challenge to equal protection. While the 14th Amendment requires intentional discrimination to prove a constitutional violation, Congress established disparate impact in civil rights statutes (like the Fair Housing Act) to recognize that facially neutral policies often have a discriminatory effect rooted in historical oppression. By targeting this tool, the administration sought to insulate institutions from accountability for outcomes that perpetuate racial inequality in housing, lending, and employment, thereby preventing Black Americans from receiving the full and equal protection promised by the law.

The 14th Amendment Challenge: Critics argue that eliminating the tool used to identify and remedy systemic effects—disparate impact—is equivalent to willfully ignoring the conditions that deny Black Americans de facto equal protection.

Censoring the Historical Narrative: The directives to remove exhibits on slavery and racial injustice from federal institutions like the Smithsonian further undermined the moral and factual basis for civil rights claims. The 14th Amendment was born out of the horrific historical injustice of slavery. By attempting to sanitize this history, the administration sought to eliminate the very context needed to understand why the legal remedies for systemic racism remain necessary today.

A Dissonant Definition of Equality

The cumulative effect of these actions presents a bifurcated vision of "equal protection":

For one group, "equal protection" means the expansion of legal enforcement power to combat a specific form of hatred, and the affirmation of their historical suffering as a valid basis for federal action.

For another group, "equal protection" is redefined narrowly—stripped of the essential tools needed to combat institutional bias—with the government actively attempting to censor the history that justifies the very need for those tools.

This strategy undermines the fundamental constitutional principle that the government must ensure all citizens are treated equally under the law, not just by avoiding intentional malice, but by actively creating the conditions where the promise of the 14th Amendment can be realized for all.