Stories endangering women and civil rights are like ships passing in the night

Since the measure was first coined by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, the "First 100 Days" is the standard we exclusively give new presidents "as a symbolic window to set the tone" of their administration. "It represents a kind of political version of a first impression," according to History.com. In 2025 though, the new president isn't really new, the first impression isn't actually the first one, and the symbolic window is less about the tone and more about the zone. That zone is being flooded right now, a strategic mantra of President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again, ex-con adviser, Steve Bannon. Monday, April 28th, was a classic day from this playbook. Two national stories detailed an attack on the Civil Rights Act from two different federal agencies and on two different targets. The stories were written as if the perpetrators of them were independent of one another, operating without a hint of knowledge that both were attacking the same iconic American standard: equal rights. On April 23rd, Trump signed an Executive Order titled, "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy."  As Newsweek reported: "It calls for an evaluation of all pending proceedings under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which was first passed in 1974 and amended in 1976 to prevent lenders from discriminating against women based on marital status." The obvious, rational question this EO provokes is a simple one: why? The EO is attacking the principle of "disparate-impact liability," or "the idea that racism, sexism, or some other form of discrimination can occur without explicit intent." Bluntly, the Trump administration is concerned that the protections against discrimination created by ECOA half a century ago might be resulting in negative consequences for those clearly responsible for the original problem. Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress explains that the Trump team's justification of reviewing the laws this way: "Because that somehow might, in individual cases, cause a white young man to lose out because the criteria has been shifted." Yes, of course. The ridiculous notion of "reverse discrimination" is often described with terms like "meritocracy" by those known for ridiculous notions. And no, an EO cannot repeal a law. But it can direct federal agencies to behave differently, and in this case, the primary enforcement agency of ECOA is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Trump team apparently wants to take the "protection" out of that agency's mission across the board. Specifically in this example, protecting women, any and all women, is being rolled back.   Connect with Michael Leppert Visit michaelleppert.com to read the full post and links to any resources or articles mentioned. Twitter @michaelleppert  Facebook at Michael Leppert Michael Leppert is an author, educator and a communication consultant in Indianapolis. He writes about government, politics and culture at MichaelLeppert.com. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.