Trump's Procurement Overhaul: A Trillion-Dollar Betrayal of Equity and Small Businesses

The federal government spends nearly $1 trillion annually, a sum that could reshape communities, empower small businesses, and advance equity. Yet, President Trump’s latest executive action, announced on April 16, 2025, threatens to unravel decades of progress. His administration’s Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) promises to streamline the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), but beneath the rhetoric of efficiency lies a troubling agenda. The plan strips away diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates, prioritizes cost-cutting over fairness, and risks sidelining the very businesses and workers it claims to champion.

This overhaul, led by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), is framed as a bold move to slash bureaucratic red tape and boost competition. The FAR, a 2,000-page behemoth of regulations, has long been criticized for its complexity. But the Trump administration’s solution, which includes rewriting rules in plain English and eliminating DEI requirements, feels less like reform and more like a rollback of hard-won gains. For those who believe government spending should reflect values of inclusion and opportunity, this move hits like a betrayal.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Federal contracts are a lifeline for small businesses, particularly those owned by women, minorities, and veterans. They fund everything from infrastructure to cutting-edge technology, shaping the economic landscape. By dismantling DEI clauses and prioritizing cost over impact, the RFO undermines the government’s role as a force for social good. It’s a policy that speaks to a narrow vision, one that ignores the broader societal benefits of equitable procurement.

Advocates for inclusive economic policies are sounding the alarm. The removal of DEI mandates, coupled with a focus on ‘merit-based’ contracting, risks entrenching existing disparities. History shows that federal spending can drive transformative change, from the New Deal’s infrastructure boom to the civil rights era’s push for fair contracting. Today, that legacy is under threat, and the consequences will ripple far beyond Washington.

At the heart of the RFO is the elimination of DEI requirements, a move rooted in the Trump administration’s executive order titled ‘Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity.’ This order, enacted in early 2025, directs agencies to scrub contracts of clauses promoting affirmative action or diversity reporting. Contractors must now certify they comply with anti-discrimination laws, but the broader framework that encouraged diverse hiring and supplier inclusion is gone. The General Services Administration (GSA) has already issued deviations to enforce this shift, leaving contractors scrambling to adapt.

Supporters of the policy argue it restores fairness by focusing on merit. They claim DEI mandates created unnecessary burdens and skewed competition. But this argument falls apart under scrutiny. Decades of research show that diverse teams drive innovation and economic growth. A 2020 McKinsey study found companies with diverse leadership are 25% more likely to outperform financially. By removing DEI from procurement, the government isn’t leveling the playing field; it’s tilting it toward large, established vendors who already dominate federal contracts.

The impact on small businesses, especially those owned by underrepresented groups, is particularly stark. Programs like 8(a), which support disadvantaged firms, have historically relied on DEI frameworks to ensure access. Without these mandates, firms that benefited from set-aside contracts face a tougher road. The administration’s claim that simplified regulations will help small businesses rings hollow when the very policies that opened doors for them are being dismantled. It’s a classic bait-and-switch, promising opportunity while pulling the rug out from under those who need it most.

One of the RFO’s more defensible goals is rewriting the FAR in plain English. The current regulations, sprawling across thousands of pages, are a labyrinth of legal jargon that favors vendors with deep pockets and compliance teams. Simplifying the language could, in theory, make contracting more accessible to small businesses and startups. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 showed that clear communication reduces errors and boosts compliance, and early feedback suggests a plain English FAR could lower barriers for new entrants.

But the devil is in the details. Rewriting regulations isn’t just about clarity; it’s about what gets prioritized. The RFO’s focus on cutting ‘non-statutory’ rules and streamlining processes raises red flags. Small businesses already face new compliance burdens, like recertifying their size status after mergers or acquisitions. These rules, meant to protect set-aside contracts, could instead spark more protests and litigation, draining resources from firms least equipped to handle them. The promise of simplicity is undermined by a reality of added complexity.

Transparency, another touted benefit, comes with its own pitfalls. The administration’s new website for procurement updates is a step toward openness, but mandating public disclosure of contract details could deter contractors wary of exposing sensitive pricing data. Industry leaders have warned that this could reduce competition and drive up costs, as firms hesitate to bid. The MadeInAmerica.gov platform, which publicizes waivers for foreign purchases, shows the double-edged sword of transparency: it informs the public but burdens agencies with administrative overhead. For a policy sold as a win for efficiency, these contradictions are hard to ignore.

The RFO’s defenders argue it will align federal procurement with private sector efficiency, where transactions move faster and cost less. Private companies, unencumbered by the FAR’s maze, leverage technology and streamlined processes to stay agile. But the comparison only goes so far. Public procurement serves a broader purpose: ensuring taxpayer dollars advance equity, accountability, and opportunity. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and other reforms showed that efficiency and fairness can coexist, yet the RFO sacrifices the latter for a narrow definition of the former.

A truly transformative overhaul would have doubled down on inclusion. It would have expanded set-aside programs, invested in training for small businesses, and used technology to simplify compliance without gutting DEI. Instead, the RFO risks entrenching a system where only the biggest players thrive. The administration’s focus on cutting ‘wasteful’ products, like paper straws, is a distraction from the real issue: a procurement system that could be a powerful engine for economic justice but is being steered toward cost-cutting at all costs.

The Trump administration’s procurement overhaul is a stark reminder of what’s at stake in federal spending. It’s not just about dollars and cents; it’s about who gets a seat at the table. By dismantling DEI mandates and prioritizing short-term savings, the RFO undermines the government’s role as a catalyst for equity and innovation. Small businesses, minority-owned firms, and workers from marginalized communities stand to lose the most, and the ripple effects will be felt for years.

But this isn’t the end of the fight. Advocates for inclusive procurement must push back, demanding policies that restore DEI, simplify compliance without sacrificing fairness, and use transparency to empower, not deter, competition. The federal government’s trillion-dollar wallet is a tool for progress, and it’s up to those who believe in a more equitable future to ensure it’s wielded wisely. The RFO may be a setback, but it’s also a call to action, a chance to reimagine procurement as a force for good.