The executive order of President Donald Trump repealing President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 on non -discrimination and federal agreements implies that the federal government no longer prohibits the contractors to have segregated facilities, akin to bathrooms and drinking fontanki.

As he notes, in the note of William Clark, the director of the General Social Property Corporation Policy Office as a part of the American Administration of General Services, New procedure or contracts shouldn’t include lists of provisions and clausesincluding a ban on sorted objects.

Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-Document agents used to jot down contracts for every provision of products or services for the federal government, the 52.222-21 clause is referred to as “a ban on sorted objects”.

According to the clause, Segregated facilities include Waiting rooms, jobs, toilets and toilets, restaurants, time clocks, cloakrooms, parking lots, drinking fountains, entertainment areas and other objects that are sorted by clear directives or, in fact, based on breed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, sexual, sexual or origin.

Before Trump’s executive orders, government contractors agreed not to keep up or provide segregated facilities to their employees in any of their plants and never allowing their employees to perform their services in any location under control under control in which segregated services are maintained.

This modified under the administration of Trump and his executive orders to do away with Dei’s initiatives. According to several federal agencies, akin to departments of defense, trade and internal security, they informed employees supervising these federal agreements on immediate introduction of those changes.

It ought to be noted that corporations still must comply with federal and state regulations, including the Act on civic rights of 1964, which prohibits amenities, no matter whether the corporate has a government agreement.

Despite this, legal experts say that changes in contracts with the federal government are significant.

“These provisions that required federal contractors and compliance with federal civil rights and maintenance of integrated and not segregated jobs were part of the efforts of the federal government in order to facilitate the settlement that led to integration in the 1950s and 1960s,” said Melissa Murray, a professor of constitutional law at New York

The US Department of Defense removed a website dedicated to a black veteran who served in the Vietnam war, characterizing his honorary medal as a medal “Dei”, but later restored the website after online fury. . side As a matter of the matter, he looked that Army General Charles Calvin Rogers, who received the Presidential Honorary Medal from President Richard Nixon in 1970. According to the defense article in 2021, Rogers stays the highest wounded Black American who received the prestigious Medal of Honor.

“A full long attack of black leadership, disassembly of the protection of civil rights, imposing unjust anti-dei regulations and unprecedented historical erasing in the defense department is a clear sign that New Jim Crow is promoted by our commander.”

Rogers, born in sorted America in 1929, entered the American army just before the army desegregation. In the early Nineteen Fifties and the Sixties, he climbed the ranks, becoming a significant. Later he trained an artillery unit and gained his first battalion order at Fort Lewis in Washington.

According to the Department of Defense, Rogers was commanded by the 1st Battalion, 5. Artillery, 1st Infantry Division. In July 1967 he was sent to Vietnam, where he spent two years at the battle. When the Rogers Battalion was attacked by the North -Wietna Vietnamese army on October 31, 1968, Gen. Rogers led soldiers in the battle. Despite the wounded during the battle, he continued the fight and killed several hostile soldiers on this process.

The battalion finally successfully overcome the invasion; However, there have been two other attacks of different defense lines. Rogers was wounded for the third time and ultimately was unable to proceed the fight, but he still managed and encouraged. Twelve American soldiers were killed and several dozen others were injured in the battle; However, military files show that the losses on the enemy side were much higher.

Rogers wounds were finally treated and returned to the USA in August 1969. The following 12 months, May 14, 1970, he received a medal of honor from President Nixon during the White House ceremony. He still served in the army, commanding more units and served in high -level leadership tasks. After 32 years of service, General Rogers retired in 1984 as the essential general.

When he returned to civil life, Rogers was ordained a Baptist minister and lived in Germany. Later he died of prostate cancer on September 21, 1990, at the age of 61. His stays were buried at the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

Since the office of office, President Trump and the Secretary of Defense Pete HegeSth have condemned the variety of US troops and to return armed services to the culture “based on merit”. Last month, President Trump released General Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. as chairman of joint chiefs of staff. Brown was praised by Trump in 2020, when he called him the head of the US Air Force.

Asked why President Trump released General Brown, the press secretary of the White House Karoline Leavitt said that Brown “does a bad job.”

The Court of Appeal with three judges allowed to implement the policy of anti-varnish, own capital and the inclusion of Donald Trump, but the decision just isn’t final, it simply gives administrative freedom to implement this policy, while proceedings regarding politics.

According to the judges, they raised the order issued by a lower federal court in February, and in the opinions of three judges, which explained their voices, the judges indicated that the administration would find a way to prove that they’d respect the right to the first amendment and anti -discrimination provisions.

This, despite the two judges who arouse the fears that the orders of Trump’s administration could potentially violate the structure if federal officials implement them too eagerly due to the narrow scope of enforcement of the ordinance.

Judge Pamela Harris, appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote in her opinion that Trump’s orders should not intended to determine that Dei is unlawful in a broad context.

“Incense orders, about them, have a clearly limited scope,” wrote Harris. “Executive orders are not intended to determine the unlawfulness of any efforts to develop diversity, equality or inclusion, and they should not be understood like that.”

Harris continued, offering the reservation: “Actions in the field of execution of agencies that go beyond a narrow scope of orders, can increase the serious first amendment and fears regarding the proper process.”

The primary judge Albert Diaz, the denominator of President Barack Obama, also argued that the aggressive implementation of executive orders focused on diversity, justice and inclusion in the federal government can present problems in addition to Dei defense.

“I also wonder how the administration enforces these executive orders,” wrote Diaz. “It is not clear what types of programs – formal or informal – the administration is trying to eliminate.”

Diaz continued: “When this country covers true diversity, it recognizes and respects the social identity of its people. When he promotes true justice, it opens possibilities and provides equal opportunities for everyone. And when his policy is really integration, he creates an environment and culture in which everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American? The country is not favorable, scrubbing the shameful moments of its past. “

Unlike the other two judges, Judge Allison Rushing, Trump’s denominator, argued that the defense of other dei judges was disputed on their roles as judges.

“The view of each individual judge about whether some executive is a good politics is not only irrelevant to fulfill our obligation to settle matters and controversy in accordance with the law, this is unacceptable issues,” Rushing wrote. “The opinion of the judge that Dei programs” deserve praise, not Opprobrium “, should not absolutely play a role in deciding about this matter.”