ABOUT PROJECT FORWARD

Led by BRIDGE, Project FORWARD is a cross-industry initiative, designed to chart our collective path forward and meet the current moment head-on. In partnership with top experts in academia, law and our board members, we are dedicated to equipping, educating, and empowering leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), marketing, and business to continue to drive inclusive innovation and sustainable growth.

 

Every Friday, Project FORWARD provides critical updates on executive orders (EO) and legislative developments, featuring legal interpretations from Stacy Hawkins, Esq., Diversity & Employment Practices Consultant and Rutgers Professor of Law, and Jessica Golden Cortes, Partner, Labor + Employment Group, Davis+Gilbert LLP. We will also include the BRIDGE POV and tangible actions to consider.*

 

We encourage our community to remain informed and proactive. If you have questions or insights you’d like to share, please email [email protected].

 

FOR PAST ISSUES OF PROJECT FORWARD WEEKLY GUIDANCE PLEASE VISIT HERE.

 

*These Project FORWARD updates should not be construed as legal advice or counsel. They are for educational and instructive purposes only, to aid our understanding about how best to actively continue our mission in response to this moment. 

UPDATE ON PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS

For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:

• Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing: Executive Order # 14151
• Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity: Executive Order # 14173
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government: Executive Order #14168
   

We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these EOs either directly or indirectly.

PFIZER, BOEING, COCA-COLA AND AMERICAN EXPRESS SHAREHOLDERS REJECT ANTI-DEI PROPOSALS

• Boeing Investors Reject Calls to Study DEI Risks
• American Express Rebuff Anti-DEI Pushes

 

OVERVIEW
In a decisive rejection of conservative pressure, the list of shareholders at several of America’s largest corporations who have overwhelmingly voted to uphold diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—despite a coordinated campaign to dismantle them—continue to increase in number.
 

The National Center for Public Policy Research, a leading force behind these anti-DEI efforts, has faced repeated defeats as shareholders signal continued support for workplace diversity initiatives.
 

Corporate boards have consistently defended DEI as a business imperative—citing its role in driving innovation, customer satisfaction, and company performance.

Opponents often misrepresent DEI as identity-based hiring. In reality, most corporate programs focus on expanding talent pipelines through outreach to underrepresented communities and fostering inclusive cultures that retain diverse talent.
 

Anti-DEI proposals have been rejected by margins as high as 97% to 99%, underscoring broad investor consensus that workforce diversity adds business value, regardless of political headwinds.

 

This shareholder support comes as more than 30 Walmart investors—including Amalgamated Bank and Oxfam America—have urged the company’s CEO to explain the business impact of scaling back its DEI policies, calling the shift “disheartening.”

PFIZER
On April 25, 2025, Pfizer shareholders rejected an anti-DEI proposal by a vote of 98% to 2%. The measure sought to evaluate risks related to religious discrimination and promote faith-based Employee Resource Groups. Pfizer’s board recommended a ‘no’ vote and reaffirmed its position in the 2025 Proxy Statement:

 

“At Pfizer, we are anchored in our values, including our firm belief in equity. As such, we strive to foster an environment of equity, inclusion and understanding.”

(Pfizer 2025 Proxy Statement)

BOEING

At Boeing’s Annual Meeting on April 26, 2025, shareholders decisively voted down two anti-DEI proposals. One, submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center, called for a report on DEI expenditures and potential risks; the other requested an independent civil rights audit. Boeing’s board opposed both, stating in its proxy materials:

 

“We remain committed to creating an inclusive workplace and believe that diversity strengthens our business.”

(Boeing 2025 Proxy Statement)

AMERICAN EXPRESS

On April 29, 2025, American Express shareholders rejected a proposal from the National Legal and Policy Center to eliminate DEI-related goals from executive compensation. The board opposed the measure, clarifying that DEI performance goals had already been removed in early 2024. In its proxy filing, the company explained:
 

“Our executive compensation program no longer includes DEI performance goals, consistent with our focus on merit-based advancement.”

(American Express 2025 Proxy Statement)

 

COCA-COLA

On April 30, 2025, Coca-Cola shareholders overwhelmingly rejected two anti-DEI proposals, each by a margin of 99% to 1%. One proposal came from the National Center for Public Policy Research, and the other from the National Legal and Policy Center. Coca-Cola’s board recommended voting against both, stating:

 

“Diversity, equity and inclusion are at the heart of our values and our growth strategy and play an important part in our company’s success.”

(Coca-Cola Company statement via LinkedIn, April 30, 2025)

HERITAGE FOUNDATION WITHDRAWS ANTI DEI PROPOSAL TO IBM

Prior to IBM’s Annual Meeting on April 30, 2025, the Heritage Foundation withdrew its anti-DEI shareholder proposal before a vote. Though the proposal appeared in the proxy statement, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna confirmed its withdrawal during the meeting. In IBM’s response to the proposal, the company stated:

 

“Our policy on Workforce Diversity and Inclusion demonstrates our commitment to fostering a work environment where every IBMer is able to thrive because of their differences, not in spite of them.”

(IBM 2025 Proxy Statement)

 

It is unknown why Heritage decided to withdraw its anti-DEI proposal to IBM, precluding shareholder vote on the proposal. No one from IBM has yet responded to an inquiry.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The message from shareholders is clear: inclusion is not a political liability—it’s a business priority. When DEI is integrated into long-term strategy, performance metrics, and board-level governance, it earns the confidence of stakeholders—even in turbulent times.

 

This isn’t just a defense of DEI. It’s a confirmation that companies can lead with clarity, withstand ideological pressure, and win the support of the market.

 

1. Tie DEI to Long-Term Shareholder Value: Ensure DEI performance is connected to long-term value creation—through innovation, market reach, talent retention, and risk management. Use your shareholder reports and earnings calls to reinforce how inclusion drives financial resilience.
2. Equip Boards to Speak Strategically on DEI: Provide your board with language, data, and scenarios to confidently navigate DEI discussions with shareholders and media. Equip directors to speak not from a place of defense, but of aligned governance and business performance.
3. Anchor DEI in Enterprise Risk Management: Treat attacks on DEI as reputational, legal, and operational risks. Integrate DEI into your ERM framework—demonstrating that dismantling inclusive practices would introduce measurable instability, not reduce it.

TRUMP ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ON DISPARATE IMPACT LIABILITY

• Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy: Executive Order #14281  

 

OVERVIEW

On April 23, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14281, titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” This order aims to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in federal anti-discrimination enforcement to the maximum extent permitted by law.  
 

Disparate impact liability allows for claims of discrimination based on policies or practices that, while neutral on their face, disproportionately affect members of protected classes. The executive order contends that this legal doctrine undermines equal opportunity by creating a presumption of discrimination based solely on statistical disparities, thereby compelling employers and institutions to consider race or other protected characteristics to avoid liability.  
 

Key directives of the order

• Instructing all federal agencies to identify and repeal or amend regulations that endorse disparate impact theory.
• Directing the Attorney General and the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review and adjust the federal government’s position in ongoing litigation involving disparate impact claims.
• Mandating the issuance of joint guidance for educational institutions and employers on the limitations of disparate impact liability under the revised federal policy.
   

The administration asserts that this shift aligns with a commitment to a colorblind legal framework that emphasizes individual merit. Critics argue that removing disparate impact protections may hinder efforts to address systemic discrimination, particularly in employment and education sectors.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This EO seeks to limit the federal government’s use of disparate impact liability—a legal framework that permits findings of discrimination where a facially neutral policy disproportionately harms a protected group, even absent intent.

 

This stands in contrast to disparate treatment liability, which requires proof of intentional discrimination.

 

The U.S. Constitution does not recognize disparate impact as a basis for liability. Constitutional claims for race, national origin, or gender discrimination—brought under the Equal Protection Clause or related provisions—must be grounded in intentional discriminatory conduct. This Executive Order does not and cannot alter constitutional law.

 

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which governs employment discrimination, expressly permits disparate impact claims. The statute recognizes both intentional discrimination and policies that result in unjustified disparate effects on protected groups. 
 

Because Title VII is a federal statute enacted by Congress, an executive order cannot override or eliminate this framework. Only Congress can amend Title VII, or a federal court could potentially strike down its disparate impact provisions if found unconstitutional—neither of which has occurred.
 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to recipients of federal funding (including educational institutions), prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The statute itself does not explicitly authorize disparate impact claims. However, the Department of Education has long enforced Title VI through both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories via regulatory guidance.

 

BRIDGE POV 

​​Executive Order 14281 is a political directive—not a legal redefinition. While the title implies a return to fairness, like other recent EOs, this Order uses the language of equality to justify a retreat from it.

 

Notwithstanding that it directs federal agencies to scale back the use of disparate impact, a well-established legal standard that addresses policies with unequal outcomes even when no intentional discrimination is shown, it does not change the law. Title VII still permits disparate impact claims in employment, and only Congress or the courts can alter that.

 

Disparate impact remains an essential legal tool because discrimination is not always intentional—but its effects are measurable. Removing this lens weakens accountability, not fairness.

 

1. Train Legal and Compliance Teams on the Limits of the EO: Develop a targeted legal training or briefing for internal counsel and compliance leaders that outlines exactly what Executive Order 14281 does not change. Clarify that statutory obligations under Title VII and related laws remain intact, and that companies must continue to consider disparate impact in risk assessments—even if federal agencies pause enforcement.
2. Create an Internal “Signal Tracker” for Policy Shift: Designate a small cross-functional task force (legal, HR, DEI, public affairs) to monitor federal and state-level shifts in DEI-related laws and enforcement. Treat it like you would ESG or cybersecurity—something requiring constant scanning, legal interpretation, and executive-level response planning.
3. Communicate Your DEI Commitments as Business Strategy: Publicly position your DEI practice as part of your company’s operational strategy. Use clear metrics tied to innovation, talent retention, and market growth to make the business case for inclusion—especially in shareholder communications and board discussions.

TRUMP TARGETS DEI IN HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH COLLATERAL ATTACKS ON ACCREDITATION AND UNIVERSITIES’ TAX-EXEMPT STATUS

• Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education: Executive Order #14279
• I.R.S. Is Said to Be Considering Whether to Revoke Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status 

 

OVERVIEW

On April 23, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Department of Education to evaluate and potentially revoke the federal recognition of accrediting agencies that, in the administration’s view, promote “unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements” through their accreditation standards.

 

In a related action, the administration also directed the IRS to investigate Harvard’s tax-exempt status, escalating ongoing threats tied to the university’s refusal to negotiate with the Administration over dismantling its DEI programs and modifying aspects of its governance, operations, and curriculum.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Accreditation is essential in U.S. higher education, as only students attending accredited institutions are eligible for federal financial aid. There are roughly a dozen federally recognized accreditors, most of which have adopted DEI standards as part of their accreditation criteria. As a result, many colleges and universities argue they cannot comply with the Trump Administration’s demand to abandon DEI efforts without risking their accreditation—and, by extension, their access to federal funding.

 

In response, Executive Order 14283 directs the Department of Education to revoke the recognition of any accreditor found to be imposing “unlawful” DEI-related standards. This move is intended to remove accreditation-related barriers to institutional withdrawal from DEI practices.

 

Separately, many nonprofit colleges and universities, including Harvard, enjoy federal tax-exempt status, which shields their endowments from taxation and provides other financial benefits. This status is governed by statute and is contingent on factors like educational purpose and political neutrality. While the Administration has directed the IRS to investigate Harvard’s exemption, neither they nor the IRS has unilateral authority to revoke tax-exempt status unless statutory criteria are no longer met.

 

If the IRS were to withdraw Harvard’s tax-exempt status at the direction of Trump and without a valid legal basis, the action would almost certainly face legal challenge—and the federal courts would ultimately decide whether such a move is permissible as a matter of law.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The latest Executive Order targeting higher education is part of a broader effort to dismantle institutional commitments to equity under the guise of “restoring merit.” By threatening the recognition of accreditors and the tax-exempt status of institutions like Harvard, the administration is attempting to use regulatory and financial pressure to force the rollback of DEI efforts.

 

But these actions stretch—and potentially exceed—the bounds of federal authority. Accreditation is a safeguard for educational quality, not a tool for political compliance. Tax-exempt status is governed by law, not ideology. Efforts to condition either on the abandonment of DEI raise legal and constitutional concerns.

 

In moments like this, institutional independence and academic integrity must remain non-negotiable. Colleges and universities should not be forced to choose between federal funding and their foundational values.

 

1. Reaffirm Institutional Autonomy in Public Policy Positions: Create a clear internal and external stance affirming the company’s right to set its own values-driven policies—including DEI—based on business strategy, workforce needs, and stakeholder expectations. Position autonomy as a governance principle, not a partisan issue.
2. Reinforce and Operationalize Core Values Across the Business: Ensure DEI is explicitly embedded in your company’s stated values—and then actively link those values to everyday business functions, from hiring to product development to vendor relationships. When values drive operations, they’re harder to politically dismantle.
3. Prepare for Values-Based Risk Scenarios: Develop a response framework for potential political or regulatory challenges to values-driven initiatives. Include legal, communications, and executive stakeholders. This allows companies to act quickly and cohesively when faced with external pressure to abandon or alter values-based practices.

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) ISSUES A NEW ANTI-DEI CERTIFICATION POLICY

• Notice of Civil Rights Term and Condition of Award  

 

OVERVIEW

On April 26, 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which operates under the US Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued Notice NOT-OD-25-090, establishing a new term and condition for all NIH awards. The policy requires grantees to certify that they are not operating “any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination law.” This certification applies to all current and future funding recipients and introduces a new layer of scrutiny tied to the interpretation of DEI-related activity.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Although the Trump Administration’s Executive Order mandating anti-DEI certifications by federal grantees has been enjoined by a federal court, the NIH has issued a parallel requirement as an agency-level policy. This new term—incorporated into all renewal, supplement, or continuation awards—requires certification that grantees are not operating programs that “advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology” in violation of federal anti-discrimination law.

 

The NIH controls an annual budget of $48 billion, with approximately 83% allocated to external grants across more than 2,500 research institutions. If other federal agencies—such as the NSF, CDC, or DOE—follow suit, this approach could effectively impose an anti-DEI certification requirement government-wide, despite the injunction against the Executive Order.

 

These agency-level policies may also face legal challenges, and could ultimately be blocked on similar constitutional or statutory grounds. However, until courts intervene, the policy is likely to have a chilling effect on DEI programming among federally funded institutions—particularly in academic, medical, and research settings.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The NIH’s new certification policy is part of a broader trend of using administrative levers to sideline DEI under the guise of legal compliance. While framed as a reaffirmation of anti-discrimination law, the policy sends a chilling message to institutions that have long relied on federal funding to support inclusive research environments.

 

This move bypasses the courts by shifting enforcement from executive order to agency policy—raising serious concerns about the erosion of institutional independence and the politicization of research funding. It also places grantees in a precarious position: forced to choose between affirming core values or risking critical federal support.

 

DEI is not incompatible with anti-discrimination law—it is a strategy to fulfill it. Policies like this one distort that reality, and institutions must be clear-eyed in recognizing both the risks and the stakes.

 

1. Reduce Over-Reliance on Restrictive Federal Grants: Establish a cross-functional review process (Legal, DEI, Grants, and Research teams) to evaluate federal funding requirements against core institutional values. If tensions arise, proactively start to develop alternative funding scenarios or partner strategies to reduce over-reliance on restrictive grants.
2. Clarity and Consistency Matters: While complying with the law, organizations must stand firm in aligning their practices with their values, even when external pressures try to obscure their path. We have seen the negative  ramifications when corporate values are compromised.
3. Codify Organizational DEI Commitments: Reaffirm your commitments to building an inclusive workplace and marketplace through updated policy statements, board resolutions, or executive communications. When values are clearly codified—and consistently applied—they are more resilient under political pressure and serve as a stable foundation for decision-making.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAUNCHES AN INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE ON ERADICATING ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIAS

• Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias: Executive Order #14202 
• Attorney General Pamela Bondi Hosts First Task Force Meeting to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government

 

OVERVIEW

Following the signing of an Executive Order by Trump, the DOJ has launched an Interagency Task Force on “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias”. The first meeting was convened by Attorney General Bondi and included participation from several Cabinet-level agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Labor, and Education.

 

While opening remarks by AG Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche were released publicly, no summary or transcript of the meeting proceedings has been made available. The scope, enforcement priorities, or forthcoming actions of the Task Force remain unclear.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Religious discrimination is prohibited under both the First Amendment, which bars government actors from favoring or penalizing religion, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion. Employers not only must avoid religious discrimination, but are also required to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and practices.

 

The scope of this new DOJ-led Task Force remains undefined, but its structure mirrors that of the administration’s prior Task Force on Combatting Anti-Semitism, which has already taken aggressive stances on campus speech and DEI programs. Based on these patterns, it is reasonable to expect that the Task Force on Anti-Christian Bias may interpret its mission in a way that targets policies perceived to conflict with certain Christian beliefs—particularly those affirming LGBTQIA+ rights.

 

In recent years, religious freedom arguments have been used to challenge legal protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals, including access to gender-neutral facilities, the use of preferred pronouns, and mandatory diversity or bias training. These types of policies may now face scrutiny by the Task Force under the theory that they infringe upon Christian religious expression.

 

Whether such scrutiny aligns with Title VII—or violates its separate protections against discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity—will ultimately be determined by the federal courts.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This Task Force, while positioned as a response to religious discrimination, raises concerns about how identity and inclusion policies may be reframed as incompatible with religious belief. Under the guise of defending Christianity, it risks validating a narrow interpretation of religious liberty that comes at the expense of LGBTQIA+ employees, gender-diverse individuals, and anyone whose identity or expression falls outside their defined norms.

 

This isn’t about balancing rights. It’s about redefining one group’s discomfort as discrimination, while disregarding the real, measurable harm to others. Supporting inclusion and respecting religious freedom are not mutually exclusive goals. But redefining inclusion as bias creates a chilling effect—one that puts employers in a difficult position and employees at risk.

 

1. Reaffirm Non-Discrimination Policies Aligned with Title VII: Explicitly restate that your company prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, consistent with federal law as interpreted by Bostock v. Clayton County. Ensure this language appears in employee handbooks, codes of conduct, and public-facing DEI statements.
2. Train Managers to Navigate Religious and LGBTQIA+ Rights Lawfully: Equip HR and people managers with training that helps them understand how to accommodate religious beliefs without compromising protections for LGBTQIA+ employees. Reinforce that respecting religious freedom does not mean validating or enabling discriminatory behavior in the workplace.
3. Document and Enforce Zero-Tolerance Protocols: Establish clear, documented procedures for reporting, investigating, and addressing discriminatory behavior—especially as it relates to identity-based harassment or exclusion. Communicate zero-tolerance expectations regularly, and back them with consistent enforcement to protect vulnerable employees and uphold legal standards.

DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS AND LAW STUDENTS PUSH BACK ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SETTLEMENTS WITH LAW FIRMS

• House Oversight Democrats to probe Trump law firm deals 
• Law students sue US civil rights agency over crackdown on law-firm DEI policies | Reuters

 

OVERVIEW

The Trump Administration has recently entered into a series of negotiated settlements with prominent U.S. law firms under two distinct frameworks.

 

The first set of settlements involved allegations that certain firms posed a national security threat by representing clients perceived as adversaries to Trump, such as Special Counsel Robert Mueller or District Attorney Jack Smith. In exchange for avoiding revocation of their security clearances, the firms reportedly agreed to abandon their DEI initiatives and provide millions in pro bono legal services to organizations selected by the Trump Administration. Democratic lawmakers have launched an investigation into whether these settlements violated ethical or legal standards.

 

The second set of agreements stemmed from EEOC investigations into 20 major law firms for potential Title VII violations related to DEI programs. A group of law students has filed suit against the EEOC, claiming the agency unlawfully sought sensitive personal information and failed to protect students from potential harm, including discrimination or retaliation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Those entities that have entered into negotiated settlements with the administration have not avoided liability - they have simply shifted it.  While intended to avoid federal penalties, these agreements have opened the door to new legal exposure from lawmakers, students, and courts, posing reputational and professional risks that may be equally damaging.

 

BRIDGE POV 

When institutions yield to political coercion—especially at the expense of their values—they set a dangerous precedent. What begins as a tactical compromise can quickly become a strategic liability. These recent settlements reveal the slippery slope of capitulation: trading core commitments for short-term protection often invites longer-term scrutiny, instability, and reputational harm.

 

1. Lead with Legal Integrity, Not Political Compliance: In high-pressure environments, resist reactive concessions. Anchor decisions in legal precedent, organizational values, and long-term business impact—not shifting political demands. Clarity and consistency are stronger defenses than taking what seems like the easier path.
2. Have conviction in your values: Stand firm in your values and treat them as non-negotiable guardrails for decision-making. When values are compromised, even quietly, the consequences are rarely contained—reputationally, legally, or culturally. What you tolerate today shapes what you stand for tomorrow.
3. Treat Capitulation as a Governance Risk: Codify response protocols for external political pressure, including board-level oversight. When values or commitments are at risk of being negotiated away, require cross-functional review to assess reputational, legal, and cultural impact—before decisions are made.

FOLLOW-UP ON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FEBRUARY 14^TH DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in Light of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard 
   

OVERVIEW

On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter (DCL) that significantly broadened the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. While the Court’s ruling specifically addressed race-conscious college admissions, the DCL extended this prohibition to encompass nearly all aspects of educational operations. 

 

Multiple organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, the American Sociological Association, and the NAACP, filed lawsuits challenging the DCL. They argue that the letter unlawfully restricts free speech, misinterprets the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and bypasses legal requirements for public notice and comment.  

 

On April 24, 2025, federal judges in Maryland and New Hampshire issued rulings temporarily blocking enforcement of the February 14th DCL. The Maryland court found that the Department of Education failed to follow required administrative procedures, including public notice and comment, before issuing what amounted to substantive regulatory guidance. Both courts also raised concerns about the letter’s legal overreach and potential constitutional implications. A third federal court in Washington D.C. prohibited enforcement of the DCL's requirement for compliance certification.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The injunctions reinforce a core principle of administrative law: federal agencies cannot impose substantive obligations without following formal rule-making procedures. By bypassing notice and comment, the Department of Education’s Dear Colleague Letter likely exceeded its authority. While the guidance expressed an enforcement position, the court viewed its scope and impact as functionally equivalent to a new regulation—subject to legal challenge and judicial review.

 

BRIDGE POV 

These rulings are a reminder that even in a volatile political climate, the rule of law still sets the boundaries. Federal agencies cannot rewrite civil rights enforcement through shortcuts or political pressure. The Dear Colleague Letter attempted to reshape education policy without public input or legal grounding—and the courts pushed back.

 

1. Don’t overcorrect in response to guidance that lacks legal force: Stay aligned with established law, not shifting political rhetoric. Compliance should be driven by statute, precedent, and principle—not fear.
2. Stay Grounded in Established Legal Standards: Title VI and Title VII remain the governing frameworks for non-discrimination. Institutions should continue to uphold lawful DEI practices rooted in these statutes, regardless of changing political interpretations or guidance
3. Use Legal Challenges as a Signal to Pause, Not Panic: When courts intervene, it’s a sign that the policy landscape is unsettled. Institutions should treat injunctions like this one as a moment to reassess—not retreat. Pause to evaluate your current practices, ensure alignment with settled law, and avoid making reactive decisions that compromise long-term commitments.

COMMUNITY EVENTS

BRIDGE invites everyone to join for our monthly Community Calls which take place on the last Thursday of every month, gathering DEI marketing, and business leaders committed to driving systemic change within our organizations and the industry at large.

 

Our next call is Thursday, May 29th from 12-1p ET.

BRIDGE25: FORWARD, our annual 2 1/2 day retreat will convene close to 200 of the top DEI, Marketing & Business Leaders at the stunning Seabird Resort overlooking the beach in Oceanside, CA, May 4-6.

The demand for real conversations, bold actions and a resolved community have never been clearer -  or more urgent. And the movement FORWARD has only just begun!

 

If you missed the chance to register, please join the waitlist. Spots may open up and if they do, we want you with us! The future of business, marketing and inclusion depends on what we all do next, together!