ADHD and DEI policies - Why must we protect them?

For the last week, I have been reflecting on and becoming increasingly concerned by the removal of DEI policies and programs in the United States due to the Presidential Executive Order. As an ADHDer, a neurodivergent researcher, an American Citizen living abroad, and as a mental health professional, I feel a duty to highlight the substantial impact this order will have on ADHD and neurodivergent individuals not just in the USA, but internationally. Research shows that neurodevelopmental differences, particularly those currently associated with disability, experience cultural stigmatisation due to lack of understanding and acceptance (1). This can include the extreme position of denial of existence of the disability (2), and is doubly so for those with concealable disabilities, usually identified as “hidden” or “invisible” who expend additional energy on anxieties around the safety of disclosure and risk of exposure, leading to greater psychological distress (3).

Policies are actionable reflections of cultural views and values upheld by a collective (nation, organisation, company etc) demonstrating how they perceive their members (citizens, employees) and what is considered normal and acceptable within that collective. While the most negative impact of stigma is individual-to-individual, cultural psychology research also shows that institutional support of stigma has a significant impact on the creation of those individual experiences. In other words, if a larger institution within a culture such as a governing body, university, corporation or social membership organisation does not set a policy of recognition and acceptance of difference, then individuals feel more empowered to stigmatise or stereotype those individuals expressing difference (3).

All support and recognition for ADHD/Neurodiversity falls under the DEI umbrella. With the exception of the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the opportunity for a neurodiverse individual to legally and procedurally explore and request accommodations to any environment to facilitate their individual performance is provided by these policies. This is significant because environments designed by and for neurotypical individuals may inadvertently include barriers to neurodivergents that do not impact neurotypicals, because neurotypicals do not experience those barriers. Designing a pen to write in English from left to right for a right-handed person is fine – but a left handed person attempting to use the pen in the same way will automatically smudge the ink, making the writing unreadable. Without consideration of the needs of the left-handed person, the evaluation of the results alone automatically appears less professional and capable by anyone judging the performance.

If criteria for performance reviews are limited, as the Act states, to individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work; and consideration for neurodivergent needs is not considered, then any negative evidence of performance can be attributed to the individual, automatically preventing progression and development. This is doubly so if the impairment the neurodivergent individual experiences is not deemed to fall within the disability criteria presented by the ADA. Research has shown that while symptoms of neurodivergent conditions can have similarities, challenges experienced by neurodivergent individuals can vary significantly depending on environment, individual strengths and weaknesses, and context (1). Without the recognition provided by DEI policies, individuals will need to prove increasingly higher negative performance factors to access support. Consistent negative feedback on performance without recognition of different needs leads to increased low self-esteem and therefore negative performance, creating a negative feedback loop which becomes increasingly damaging both professionally and to the mental health of the neurodivergent individual, which can be interpreted as justification for performance warnings or even job termination.

As for newly diagnosed individuals of all age groups who may not know what accommodations they need as they haven’t yet explored any options, the removal of these policies requires them to justify any impairments they experience to meet the limitations of the disability criteria. If it cannot be justified, they have no other option to request accommodations. Environments where individuals feel stigmatised means those who have not yet been diagnosed will be more reluctant to seek diagnosis, which we have seen in the past both in educational and professional environments, meaning their performance will continue to be negatively affected and without a diagnosis will be attributed to individual ability.

At the institution level, removal of DEI policies and programs removes funding opportunities for research on learning more about the needs of neurodivergent individuals, and the evidence needed for environmental options, educational approaches, and programs that are effective in helping them to feel skilled and provide effective contributions to society.

The impact of these changes not only effect citizens of the United States, but also how ADHD/Neurodiversity is understood on the world stage. Internationally, the United States presents a highly visible, influential and impactful unique model of how it values, represents and supports its citizens. There are currently countries in the world who do not recognise ADHD/Neurodiversity or provide any diagnosis or treatment options (4). Removing DEI policies, particularly from international companies originating from or with corporate services in the USA operating in these countries, provides the opportunity for these countries to continue deny the existence and support for their own neurodivergent citizens.

In order to highlight the significant impact of the removal of DEI policies on specifically ADHDers, I urge readers to do the following:

• Investigate the impact on neurodiversity of the loss of DEI programs in your organisation, including children’s education. Request clarity and specifics on how the removal of these policies will impact individual requests for accommodations and support

• Reach out to your neurodiverse cousins, particularly if they are awaiting diagnosis or have not yet pursued a diagnosis. Their current struggles to be validated, recognised and understood will be amplified by the uncertainty regarding access to support

• Contact organisations advocating for recognition and support of neurodiversity and find out if they have any response to these changes, particularly those that requires evidence of impact. In the first instance, these would be CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) https://chadd.org/ and Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA) https://add.org/

I grew up in a world without DEI. Without evidence of my brother’s hyperactivity, which met the current diagnostic criteria, we would never have learned about ADHD and I would never have been diagnosed. Without that knowledge, we would never have been supported to explore our individual needs or learn to adapt to our differences, and both my brother’s and my “individual performance” would have been judged as less capable than those of our peers. It has taken more than 40 years, most of my lifetime, for cultural understanding to reach the point that it would be acceptable for individual needs to begin to be considered, and that has only been achieved in the last 5 years. Removal of DEI programs at this stage not only removes current access for individuals just learning how to understand themselves and investigate options, but prevents consideration of those needs in all levels of cultural and national arenas from even having a seat at the table.

1 Champ, R. E., Adamou, M., & Tolchard, B. (2023). Seeking connection, autonomy, and emotional feedback: A self-determination theory of self-regulation in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychological review, 130(3), 569.

2 Saul, R. (2014). ADHD does not exist: The truth about attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Harper Collins.

3 Nettles, R., & Balter, R. (Eds.). (2011). Multiple minority identities: Applications for practice, research, and training. Springer Publishing Company.

4 ADHD Europe 2025 https://adhdeurope.eu/about-us/awareness-2/