War on Women's Financial Independence

As reported by Newsweek, Trump’s April 24, 2025 salvo in the War on Women targets Women's Financial Independence.

He signed an EO that can curb women’s financial independence by requiring her to have a male relative or her husband cosign credit card or loan applications, effectively laying the groundwork for relegating women out of the world and back to the home.

The EO title is “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” and is “intended to encourage ‘meritocracy and a colorblind society, not race- or sex-based favoritism.’”

Trump opposes the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, amended in 1976, whose purpose was to prevent discrimination by lenders against married women based on marital status.

Quoting Newsweek:

[I]f independent federal agencies abide by the order they will stall litigation protecting women from being discriminated against for credit, and they will roll back guidance and regulations which were in place to protect people's rights.

“Prior to the ECOA (equal credit opportunities), women were asked to have a male relative or spouse cosign for a credit card or loan.

This EO targets “the principle of Proving Discrimination- Disparate Impact, the idea that racism, sexism, or some other form of discrimination can occur without explicit intent.

The President believes that disparate-impact liability is a key tool in a "pernicious movement" that "endangers" the U.S.' foundational principle of "creating opportunity, encouraging achievement, and sustaining the American Dream."

“President Trump said: "[Disparate-impact liability] not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution."

"They're trying to argue that it is somehow violating civil rights law and the Constitution to require employers or housing providers to consider the disparate impact on race or gender or age, right or disability," Ben Olinsky - Center for American Progress told Newsweek. "Because that somehow might, in individual cases, cause a white young man to lose out because the criteria has been shifted."

They claim they lost their Equal Protection rights to control others by the 1974 law. Reading the clause itself contains no loss of equal protection to white me. Ask if other races and women ever had an “Equal Protection” right to control white men? Nope. Never.