You have now changed the reason you're claiming she was fired, first it was asking about people's identities now it's that she wanted people to stop working. This leads me to believe that perhaps you reached your conclusion first, and are trying to find evidence to support your preferred result rather than the other way.
But even now your claims are at best only half true, reading the email she says people should stop working on DEI things specifically, as they can't be successful without executive sponsorship and execs only pay lip service. Is that criticism wrong?
But don't let truth get in the way of a good story, right?