President Donald Trump made headlines early in his second term when he ordered that affirmative action programs be dismantled. Less noticed was the fact that quite a few states had already eliminated such preferences for contractors, in some cases years ago.

This record can now provide some answers as to how businesses owned and operated by underrepresented groups actually fare after these measures take effect.

I’m an economist who has researched the consequences of state bans on affirmative action, and I found a mixed picture with some surprising conclusions. Notably, these measures did reduce the average head count among minority- and women-owned contractors. But in general, they didn’t push these companies to close shop.

This research is important not just because affirmative action is so politically sensitive. It matters because of the vast amount of money at stake: The U.S. spends about 10% of its gross domestic product on federal and state contractors, buying everything from pencils to new missile systems.

Action at the state level

For decades, the government often sought to support businesses owned and operated by minorities and women through affirmative action at the federal and state levels.

But in more recent years, pushback against affirmative action and closely related diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives has prompted some states to eliminate such practices, including in contracting. Among the most recent cases was Indiana, whose attorney general pronounced in July 2026 those preferences were unconstitutional.

I looked at the nine states that had banned affirmative action in contracting as of 2020 – covering 114,000 employers – and measured how affected companies adjusted their operations. One key finding is that they sharply reduced their workforce. Five years after a ban, these businesses had about 11% fewer workers than their counterparts who were not minority- or women-owned.

Black-owned businesses were the most affected, cutting their workforce by about 19%. For context, that number exceeds even the early COVID-19 layoffs. The largest minority- and women-owned businesses also had significant reductions, by roughly 13%.

These bans also dampened the formation of new businesses, reducing the annual average number of startups by 35 in states with bans. But there’s no evidence they put minority- and women-owned contractors out of business.

A regional breakdown shows that metropolitan counties saw the largest relative decrease in the size of affected businesses. And states with smaller minority populations saw less of an effect on company size. Altogether, these results suggest that these bans didn’t have uniform effects, even within states.

One conclusion may be less intuitive: These bans didn’t play a role in whether affected contractors went out of business. In fact, companies owned by minorities and women were less likely to go under after a ban than other companies.

This result may seem puzzling at first. One would expect higher rates of exiting from the contracting business than before, especially since affected businesses also became smaller.

But I found statewide bans did lead to the equivalent of a roughly 9% drop in long-run productivity. Bans also equated to a 10% decline in the value of companies, regardless of whether they were sold off.

In short, although affected contractors were no more likely to close shop, banning affirmative action led them to downsize relative to companies that were not owned by minorities and women. And the drop in their employee head count corresponded to a decline in productivity, likely driven by reduced contracting opportunities.

These changes in states, and now at the federal level, make it all the more important to understand how banning affirmative action has impacted underrepresented businesses so policymakers know what to expect going forward.

Questions to be addressed

Many questions still need to be answered. Although my study looked at how underrepresented contractors respond after these bans, researchers still don’t have good estimates of how many contract dollars these businesses lost, except in more isolated cases.

Furthermore, the changes at the federal level still need to be researched. While past legal cases have limited how practitioners have applied affirmative action, attempts to eliminate it at the federal level are very recent. Further research is needed to fully understand the scope of these changes.

Any views expressed are those of the author and not those of the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau has reviewed this data product to ensure appropriate access, use, and disclosure avoidance protection of the confidential source data used to produce this product. This research was performed at a Federal Statistical Research Data Center under FSRDC Project Number 2075. (CBDRB-FY26-P2075-R12853 and CBDRB-FY26-P2075-R12995)

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who find it acceptable to be a little tardy and those who consider it an affront to all that is decent. As someone who frequently runs late, I’m often relieved when someone else is, too. And I don’t mind if a friend is a bit behind; the worst-case scenario is I have a few minutes of peace in which to stare at my phone. But the perpetually punctual see this as disrespect, as showing up late is a sign you don’t value others’ time, that you believe what you’re doing is more important.

The reality is often much more banal. Chronically late people may overestimate how long something will take them (like getting ready or commuting), are perhaps multitasking, or lose track of time. 

Of course, few people would be satisfied with waiting at a restaurant for an hour while their date swears they’re only ten minutes away. Is there a socially acceptable sweet spot for tardiness that satisfies both the need for punctuality while giving grace to the time-challenged? To answer that question, I enlisted the help of three people with unique viewpoints: an etiquette expert, a researcher who has studied lateness, and an extremely punctual guy who has strong feelings on the matter.

Answers have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

The etiquette expert: You get a 15ish-minute buffer to casual events, 5 minutes for everything else

“Five minutes late to a Zoom call or a scheduled phone call for work is, in my mind, really late. Five minutes late to meet your friend at a restaurant is not very late and very forgivable. Five minutes late to their house, super forgivable. Half an hour late to dinner and they won’t seat you and now you’ve lost your table, that starts to be a bit annoying. Late to a surprise party is unforgivable. I’ve seen hosts get really upset about that one because you can likely ruin a very well-planned surprise. There’s a 15-to-30-minute arrival period for most gatherings. You push past that and you’re showing up really late. If you are going to be late, let somebody know, whether it’s a phone call or a text message.

If you were only getting together for an hour and you’re starting to push the half-hour mark, you might want to check in with someone about whether you’ve really messed up and it’s not worth it for them to stay and meet with you for 20 minutes by the time you arrive. 

There are definitely friends who take advantage of other people’s time and that would be something to talk with someone about if it’s chronic and to the point where it starts ruining the experience. You could say, ‘I know that you’re often 20 to 30 minutes late when we get together for something. It would mean a lot if you could try to be on time at seven for this one.’ We can’t control how other people react. They might feel offended. They might start rattling off reasons why they’re always late and you can say, ‘I know and I understand it really does happen, but it’s been consistent enough and this one’s important. I would really love to have you get there at the start time.’ I think that can make a difference.”

—Lizzie Post, co-author of Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Centennial Edition

The lateness researcher: It depends on the cultural norms of the people involved

“Being late differs across the world. We have wide windows of time or very narrow ones depending on the culture. In our research, we were comparing Dutch, South African, and Pakistani norms. We knew that there would be differences, but we had no idea how much. Pakistanis really have a different idea about lateness. They’re much more flexible about it. The window’s much wider. For the Dutch and South Africans, the window is about 15 minutes. After that, people will start thinking they’re not coming anymore or start calling. But for Pakistanis, that moment arrives much later.

For people who grew up in cultures that are more aligned with the Protestant work ethic, we would say there’s a deal between two people about the time frame. If you don’t conform to that, then you violate that norm and then you are late. For Pakistanis, it is a time frame that aligns with the clock, but it depends on who is there, not so much as a deal between two people. The Dutch are very egalitarian. Everyone, it doesn’t matter what status you have, is allowed about 15 minutes. But we saw that for Pakistanis, if you’re meeting a very important person, then they can arrive much later.

There’s also a bit of the emotional side or the feeling that you are personally responsible and you’re rude if you don’t stick to those norms. I discussed this in class with my students because a lot of them show up late. I was saying, ‘I think it’s very rude when there’s somebody presenting and they get interrupted by doors opening.’ A lot of them said, ‘I don’t think it’s rude.’ They had different norms about that situation. Some of them agreed with me, but not everyone.

In practice, I think that it depends on how important the appointment is. In our class, we emphasized that we as teachers find being on time important. The norm violation becomes more important when it is explicit. And I have a sense that now the students are more apologetic.

In developing intercultural skills, ‘bridging’ is often trained. One of the things in bridging is to make expectations explicit. It involves explaining how violating the norms surrounding them are experienced, and then trying to find solutions that are acceptable for both sides. Often, this leads to people agreeing that it means give and take, but it can also mean changing procedures or rules.”

—Wendelien van Eerde, associate professor at Amsterdam Business School at the University of Amsterdam

The punctual guy: Actually, just be early

“For a home-hosted dinner party, no more than 30 minutes late before it’s inconsiderate. 

For dinner reservations at a restaurant, five minutes before is inconsiderate as normally your party can’t be seated until everyone is there and making everyone wait for you isn’t cool. 

For house party gatherings, show up whenever unless specifically asked by the host to be there at a specific time. 

For work-related situations, like being on set ready to shoot at your scheduled call time, be there five minutes before your call time. The crew got there on time to prepare for you. Show them the same respect. Your time is not more valuable than theirs.”

—Bobby Berk, interior designer and host of HGTV’s Junk or Jackpot?

The bottom line: Be considerate and communicate

Try as we might to get everything done, leave the house in a timely manner, and hope for no traffic, life often has other plans. Lateness happens. But as long as you make a good faith effort to be on time, openly communicate when you’re running behind, and don’t make a habit of it, consider a 10-to-15 minute window an appropriate buffer. Any later and you might start to lose goodwill.