Immediately following the election, BRIDGE launched Project FORWARD to equip and empower diversity, equity and inclusion and marketing and business leaders to continue to drive inclusive innovation and sustainable growth.

The political landscape is shifting fast—and with it, the legal, reputational, and operational risks facing companies committed to equity and inclusion. In this moment, leaders cannot afford to be passive or reactive. They must be informed, pragmatic, and resolute.

This special issue recaps a high-impact BRIDGE25 session that cuts through the noise—clarifying what’s legal, what’s smart, and what’s next. If you’re navigating board pressure, legal uncertainty, or internal doubt, this is the clarity you need to lead forward.

SESSION OVERVIEW

The session featured a deep dive into the legal realities and strategic imperatives shaping corporate DEI in 2025. Moderated by BRIDGE founder and CEO Sheryl Daija, the session brought together legal experts Stacy Hawkins, Professor of Law at Rutgers University and BRIDGE Board Advisor, and Jessica Golden Cortés, Partner at Davis + Gilbert LLP and BRIDGE General Counsel.

What follows is a focused, high-value briefing on the status of anti-DEI executive orders, the enduring power of Title VII and the limits of presidential authority. The session explores both risk mitigation and emphasizes business continuity, workforce retention, and shareholder alignment in an era of manufactured confusion.

DETAILED Q&A RECAP

1. The Legal Limits of Executive Orders

QUESTION: What is the legal authority of the anti-DEI executive orders, and how do they impact existing laws?

 

“They do not have the force or effect of law. They do not change the state of the law.”
– Stacy Hawkins

 

Professor Stacy Hawkins opened by clarifying a common misconception: executive orders do not have the force of law. Instead, they are internal directives issued by the President to federal agencies—guiding how those agencies should interpret and enforce existing law based on the administration’s policy priorities. As such, they cannot rewrite statutes or fundamentally alter legal obligations.

This distinction is critical for business leaders. Executive orders from the Trump administration may redirect how the Department of Education, EEOC or DOJ enforces policy, but they do not—and cannot—change civil rights law. Whatever was legal on January 19, 2025 remains legal today. And whatever was illegal then is still illegal now. The legal foundations that support inclusive hiring, workforce equity programs, and organizational culture investments remain fully intact.

 

It was also noted that several state attorneys general issued multi-state guidance in response to the executive orders. This guidance reaffirmed that DEIA best practices are not only lawful under both federal and state civil rights laws, but also help reduce litigation risk. Properly developed programs that ensure diverse perspectives in the workplace can actually prevent discriminatory conduct and support early identification and resolution of legal issues. These state-level affirmations further reinforce the message: the law is still the law.

Strategic Implication:
Executives should not enforce executive orders as if they were binding legal directives. They are political tools—not legal mandates. Premature rollback of DEI initiatives based on fear of enforcement could result in reputational damage or even increased legal exposure. In fact, well-designed inclusion strategies are not just legal—they are legally protective.

2. Title VII: The Backbone of Workplace Equity

QUESTION: Why is Title VII so essential in this moment, and what protections does it offer?

 

“Title VII remains the law. It will require an act of Congress, not an act of the president to change it.” – Stacy Hawkins

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the cornerstone of workplace anti-discrimination law in the United States. It prohibits employment discrimination—most notably on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. Hawkins and Golden Cortés emphasized that Title VII applies to every private and public employer with 15 or more employees—and that it remains unchanged despite the flurry of executive rhetoric.

 

Importantly, Title VII does not prohibit DEI practices. On the contrary, it supports them. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with enforcing Title VII, has long held that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are in furtherance of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity guarantees under the law.

 

DEI programs can—and should—continue in compliance with Title VII. In doing so, final decisions about benefits, opportunities, or access must not be based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Programs should focus on broadly expanding access, using inclusive criteria that avoid identity-based eligibility or decision-making.

 

To be clear: Title VII remains the law. It has not been modified. It has not been altered. And it will require an act of Congress—not an act of the president—to change it.

Strategic Implication:
Leaders should center their DEI strategy around Title VII compliance—not political noise. Efforts that increase opportunity and equity for all, when implemented with neutrality and transparency, are legally sound and reputationally smart.

3. Disparate Impact: Still Law, Still Enforceable

QUESTION: Can the administration remove the disparate impact standard under Title VII?

 

​​“Disparate impact is in the text of Title VII. He cannot alter it by executive order.” 

– Stacy Hawkins

 

“Your employees can still sue—even if the EEOC doesn’t.” – Jessica Golden Cortés

 

Disparate impact under Title VII holds employers accountable for policies that appear neutral but result in unequal outcomes. For example, a test used for hiring or promotion may unintentionally exclude candidates based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Even without intent to discriminate, if a policy disproportionately limits opportunity for protected groups, it can trigger liability under Title VII.

 

The Trump administration has signaled its desire to eliminate this standard.

But Hawkins was unequivocal: disparate impact is embedded in the statutory language of Title VII. It cannot be removed by executive order. The administration can deprioritize its enforcement at the EEOC level, but individuals still retain the right to sue under this theory—and most enforcement already comes through private litigation.

Strategic Implication:
Companies cannot ignore disparate impact. Even if federal agencies slow enforcement, plaintiffs’ attorneys won’t. Organizations that halt equity efforts or allow structural barriers to persist may face long-term legal consequences.

4. DEI Scrutiny: Staying Compliant without Stepping Back

QUESTION: Amid confusion, what DEI practices are compliant, and which pose legal risks?

 

“Audit—don’t abandon. That’s the most important advice we can give.” – Stacy Hawkins

 

The panelists emphasized that most DEI programs remain fully legal—if implemented with care. The key is moving away from identity-exclusive eligibility and toward need-based, access-oriented frameworks. For instance, mentorship and sponsorship programs should be open to all employees, even if their design is intended to close opportunity gaps that disproportionately affect women or Black and brown employees.

The EEOC’s recent fact sheet (titled “What to Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work”) offers insight into current enforcement priorities. Practices flagged as problematic to them include:
  • Restricting participation in ERGs based solely on identity (e.g., excluding allies).
  • Mandating segregated training by race or sex.
  • Using quotas or tying incentives directly to demographic hiring targets.
  • Retaliating against employees who object to DEI content based on religious or ideological grounds.
 

While these provide insight, nothing has changed in the compliance of DEI. Golden Cortés referenced a session from last year where Professor Kenj Yoshino framework. Green practices are fully compliant and can continue. Yellow practices may require adjustments to align with Title VII. Red practices—such as quotas—have always been illegal and must be avoided.

Strategic Implication:
Now is the time for audits, not abandonment. Companies should evaluate public statements, internal documents, and program eligibility through a Title VII lens—with counsel involved to preserve attorney-client privilege.

5. Adjusting Language Without Compromising Commitment

QUESTION: Can organizations continue DEI work by adapting how they describe and frame it?

 

“We used race and gender as shortcuts. Now we need to be more precise.” – Stacy Hawkins

 

Many DEI efforts have historically relied on race, ethnicity, or gender as a proxy for identifying who needs support—but that shortcut is no longer sufficient under current legal scrutiny. The law now requires organizations to move beyond assumptions and instead focus on identifying the actual barriers employees face in accessing opportunity.

 

The panel emphasized that diversity programs should be designed around end goals: Who in your organization lacks access to mentorship, sponsorship, leadership development, or advancement opportunities? Who doesn’t have organic relationships with senior leaders? These are the criteria that matter—not assumptions based on demographic identity.

 

Programs such as leadership training, summer internships, or mentoring should still be created to close opportunity gaps—but they must be open to all employees, based on neutral, need-based criteria. While these programs may still disproportionately benefit underrepresented groups, they cannot be restricted to those groups alone. Doing so risks violating Title VII.

 

The legal risk is even higher when programs are based on stereotypes—for example, assuming all women lack assertiveness or need communication coaching. These assumptions can create exposure to discrimination claims.

 

To stay compliant, the guidance was clear: structure programs around access and support needs, not identity. Open them to all who meet those criteria. This approach not only protects against legal liability but also broadens impact—ensuring that all employees who face structural barriers, including white men, can benefit from inclusion strategies.

Strategic Implication:
Reframing is not capitulation. It is a strategic adjustment that preserves values while reducing risk. CEOs must support their teams in continuing the work—smartly and legally.

6. The Bigger Risk: Overcorrection

QUESTION: What’s the danger of scaling back too quickly or too broadly?

 

“We’ve seen a far more negative impact on companies that have pulled back than on companies that are doubling down.” - Sheryl Daija

 

While media headlines have focused on companies pulling back from DEI, recent shareholder activity tells a different story. In the 2025 proxy season, a wave of anti-DEI proposals—aimed at dismantling or defunding inclusion programs—were overwhelmingly rejected by shareholders, with most votes showing 97–99% opposition. These are not activist investors; they are mainstream shareholders affirming that inclusion remains aligned with long-term business value.

 

This trend challenges a narrative that DEI was merely a response to the racial reckoning following George Floyd’s murder. That framing suggests companies acted out of public pressure, and could now reverse course under new scrutiny. But panelists emphasized that this is a false dichotomy. DEI has always been grounded in business fundamentals—not just social responsibility. These efforts support legal compliance, operational performance, and competitive positioning—especially for consumer-facing brands.

 

Pulling back too quickly poses serious risk. Internally, it signals to employees that values are conditional. This can fracture trust and lead to attrition, particularly among top-performing, purpose-driven talent. Externally, it creates reputational exposure and can erode investor confidence. The panel noted that companies that have abruptly scaled back on DEI have suffered more backlash than those that have doubled down with discipline.

Strategic Implication:
The data is clear: shareholders are backing DEI. CEOs who panic risk damaging both workforce cohesion and investor confidence.

7. The Long Game

QUESTION: What is one piece of advice you would like to give the attendees?

 

“DEI has survived other political cycles. It will survive this one. Play the long game.”
— Stacy Hawkins

“Be the steady voice in the room. Don’t let fear dictate strategy. Help your C-suite and your legal teams stay grounded.”
— Jessica Golden Cortés

Strategic Implication:
This moment calls for courageous steadiness, not withdrawal. Equip your teams, clarify your positions, and lead forward with focus.

Key Takeaways for CEOs and Executive Teams

• Executive Orders Are Not Law – They do not change civil rights protections or legal obligations.
• Title VII Remains the Legal Foundation – It still protects and supports workplace equity.
• Disparate Impact Is Still Enforceable – Private lawsuits remain active channels of enforcement.
• DEI Programs Are Still Legal – If well-structured, opportunity-expanding programs are compliant.
• Overcorrection Is the Bigger Risk – Pullbacks based on fear can increase vulnerability.
• Words Matter, Strategy Matters More – Reframing with compliance in mind preserves intent and protects programs.
• This Moment Requires Leadership, Not Hesitation – CEOs must ground decisions in facts, not fear.

Actionable Strategies

1. Conduct a Legal Risk Audit – Engage counsel to evaluate your programs, documents, and communications.
2. Shift from Identity-Based to Access-Based Design – Use need- or opportunity-based criteria.
3. Reaffirm Values Without Escalating Risk – Preserve intent, protect language.
4. Educate the C-Suite and Legal Teams Together – Build internal alignment between business, legal, and DEI.
5. Monitor State and Shareholder Trends Closely – Leverage evidence of support to guide external posture.
6. Stay the Course—But Stay Smart – Adapt with precision, don’t abandon the work.

BRIDGE POV

The Road Ahead Requires More Than Compliance. It Demands Courage.

At BRIDGE, we believe this moment is not simply about surviving political headwinds—it’s not a time to be palatable. It is the time to be principled. The attack on DEI is not just a legal test. It is a leadership test. And the companies that will thrive are those that choose clarity over confusion, conviction over compliance, and long-term impact over short-term panic.

We launched Project FORWARD because we knew the private sector would be forced to lead where government would not. Not by being reckless. But by being ready—with legal guidance, strategic framing, and an unwavering commitment to equity.

Our position is clear:
Rethink. Refocus. Realign. But do not retreat.

Inclusion isn’t a public relations strategy. It’s a core driver of business value, risk mitigation, and building a winning culture. The smartest companies in the world are not pulling back—they’re doubling down with better tools and clearer language. They are auditing, adapting, and advancing. Companies must prevail with institutional autonomy—not just economically, but morally—protecting the liberties of their employees.

Project FORWARD exists to equip you with the clarity, tools, and confidence to meet this moment. Because the future will not be won by those who wait. It will be led by those who are ready. It won’t be shaped by the loudest—it will be shaped by the bravest.

Let’s go FORWARD. Together. With Courage.

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.