Opportunity is Bipartisan, Equity is Not
In the complex landscape of American policy, the notion of opportunity has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Investments in economic growth, job creation, and small business development have often bridged ideological divides. But as we navigate the current Trump administration’s policy direction, a stark contrast is emerging: while programs like Opportunity Zones 2.0 are poised for a comeback—revitalizing disinvested urban and rural communities through capital gains incentives—efforts to institutionalize equity are being actively dismantled.
This tension between promoting economic development and undermining equity-focused frameworks presents a sobering reality for policymakers, practitioners, and communities alike. The very neighborhoods that stand to benefit from Opportunity Zone (OZ) investments are often the same ones most harmed by rollbacks to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. It’s a contradictory and troubling trend.
The Promise of Opportunity Zones 2.0
To be clear, there is good news. The re-emergence of Opportunity Zones 2.0—especially under a renewed policy focus on infrastructure, rural development, and manufacturing—is a welcome signal that community revitalization still has a place on the national agenda. When implemented effectively, OZs can channel patient capital into real estate, clean energy, broadband, and business development in historically neglected areas. For investors, they offer powerful tax advantages. For communities, they offer a fighting chance at long-overdue reinvestment.
What makes OZs uniquely viable in the current political climate is their bipartisan appeal. Republicans support the program as a market-based, pro-growth strategy, while Democrats—at least historically—have viewed it as a tool for closing the racial wealth gap and funding community-led development. Despite implementation flaws in the past, the potential for more accountable and inclusive OZ policy exists—if stakeholders demand it.
The Cost of Abandoning Equity
But this potential comes at a time of deeply troubling regression elsewhere. The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle DEI policies, end race-conscious admissions, and strip equity from federal grant criteria are not just symbolic reversals—they are substantive policy shifts with long-term consequences. Programs designed to level the playing field for Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income communities are being actively unwound, often under the guise of “colorblind” governance or “efficiency.”
These actions betray the original spirit of Opportunity Zones. After all, the very census tracts that qualify for OZ status are defined by socioeconomic disadvantage. Eliminating equity from the broader federal framework—while touting investment zones—amounts to encouraging capital inflows without regard for who benefits. It's an approach that risks exacerbating, rather than easing, the racial and economic disparities that prompted the OZ program in the first place.
The Economic Case Against Inequity
This is not just a moral concern—it’s economic malpractice. Virtually every mainstream economist agrees: inequality drags down growth. A strong middle class fuels demand, innovation, and workforce resilience. Policies that hollow out that middle—by privileging capital over labor, or eliminating guardrails that protect vulnerable groups—ultimately make our economy more fragile, not less.
Opportunity Zones work best when combined with other tools: cost segregation, renewable energy tax credits, workforce development programs, and yes—equity-centered policies that ensure local residents have a seat at the table. When we invest in place without investing in people, we create polished facades and deeper divides.
A Path Forward
So where does that leave us? In a paradoxical but not hopeless place. While federal equity programs are under attack, savvy local leaders, developers, and community organizations can still leverage tax policy, philanthropic capital, and private investment to drive inclusive growth. It will take more effort. It will require new coalitions. And it will demand a recommitment to doing the hard work of community engagement, shared ownership, and long-term stewardship.
The tools are still there. Opportunity Zones, when structured responsibly, can build housing, launch small businesses, and bring solar power to neighborhoods long left in the dark. But the vision must be bigger than ROI. It must be about dignity, about access, and about reversing decades of disinvestment—not just monetizing it.
In this moment, opportunity is bipartisan—but equity is not. That distinction matters. And yet, through creative policy, mission-aligned capital, and persistent local leadership, we can still bridge the gap.
Because when we do, we don't just grow GDP—we grow communities. And that, in the long run, is the only growth that truly matters.
