by Dennis Crouch
I sometimes have difficulty following doublethink. The recent implementation of the Republican Administration’s executive orders on diversity initiatives has created a nuanced and seemingly contradictory landscape in federal agencies, including the USPTO.
In January 2025, the White House issued executive orders “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” These orders were followed by a February 5, 2025 memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management providing additional guidance on implementation. At the same time, the White House has repeatedly offered statements and other executive actions that focus particularly on protecting and “defending women.”
The USPTO’s implementation response has been notably selective. The agency terminated programs related to Black Innovation and Entrepreneurship outreach, yet is proceeding with its “Women’s Entrepreneurship Symposium” scheduled for March 27, 2025, which explicitly focuses on “highlighting women innovators.” The symposium continues a series started under the Biden administration, though with a modified definition of women that excludes transgender women.
Women are very much underrepresented in the patent system. The USPTO’s 2022 report found that in 2019 women made up only 13% of all inventor-patentees in the United States. The report takes the position that this difference is not attributable to any “biological truth” about inventive capability, but rather stems from systemic barriers including educational access, professional networks, geographic mobility constraints, and institutional practices that have historically favored male inventors. This persistent underrepresentation creates what economists call an “unnecessary drag on American innovation and prosperity,” with some economic models suggesting that achieving gender parity in patenting could increase commercialized patents by 24%. The USPTO report identifies key factors that could increase women’s participation in patenting, including university mentorship, enhanced collaboration opportunities, and addressing geographic constraints.
As the USPTO moves forward with implementing the executive orders, there appears to be room for interpretation that allows certain identity-focused programming to continue while others are terminated. The economic justification for continued women’s innovation programming is clear, but its legal consistency remains questionable.
What are your thoughts? Does the economic impact of women’s innovation justify this apparent selective implementation of diversity policy? Or does this approach undermine the legal coherence of the administration’s stated objectives?