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
   
• 18 State Attorneys General filed an amicus brief in support of DEI
• Attorney General James Defends DEI Programs and Initiatives
   

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

OVERVIEW

As reported on in earlier issues (2, 3 and 4), in February, a coalition of plaintiffs featuring the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland (the Plaintiffs Coalition) brought a lawsuit in Maryland federal court challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences) and the Executive Order 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity).

 

On March 10, 2025, an injunction was granted to the plaintiffs in which the judge clarified that the preliminary injunction applies to ALL federal executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions (other than the president), not just those that were specifically named in the complaint.

And on March 13, plaintiffs made a motion alleging that although they have repeatedly informed the defendants of various instances of noncompliance with the terms of the Order, and requested clarification from the defendants concerning their efforts to comply with the Order, “it has become clear the federal government remains noncompliant.”

 

Later in March, and in response to an emergency stay of the injunction filed by the government, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals panel reinstated portions of Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and suspended the injunction issued by the lower court.  The judges appeared to be in agreement that there were still constitutional concerns that need to be addressed, and made the point that the constitutionality of the EOs themselves is separate from the constitutionality of how the EOs are carried out.

 

“My vote to grant the stay comes with a caveat,” added Judge Harris,. “What the Orders say on their face and how they are enforced are two different things. Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns.” 

 

On May 15,  a coalition of 19 State Attorneys General, including Attorney General Letticia James of NY, filed an amicus brief supporting the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education’s legal challenge against the two executive orders to dismantle diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) policies and programs.  The amici include the Attorneys General of Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The amicus brief, filed by 18 state attorneys general, makes a forceful legal case for the continued legitimacy—and necessity—of DEIA practices. The states assert that they “embrace [DEIA] and related principles, and are deeply committed to enforcing civil rights laws.” Far from being legally suspect, the brief argues, DEIA practices are not only permitted under existing civil rights statutes but in some contexts are required to fulfill anti-discrimination obligations.

 

Crucially, the AGs emphasize that DEIA is not an abstract value—it’s a source of tangible public benefit. The brief further outlines how inclusive policies improve educational outcomes, economic opportunity, and public health, while helping states attract and retain a competitive workforce. In short: DEIA is a governance strategy that advances both equity and prosperity.

 

This filing also reflects a broader legal and civic trend: a mounting, organized pushback against federal attempts to dismantle DEI. From the amicus brief filed by hundreds of law firms in the Perkins Coie case, to the joint statement from over 100 university presidents backing Harvard’s challenge, institutions are stepping into the legal arena to affirm that inclusion is not only lawful—it is foundational.

BRIDGE POV

Despite some of the headlines, the law is not abandoning DEI—it’s defending it. The amicus brief filed by 18 State Attorneys General is just the latest s essential to the functioning of a modern, inclusive economy. These leaders are not only affirming the constitutionality of DEIA programs—they’re arguing that such efforts are central to the health, competitiveness, and civil rights commitments of their states.

 

This is a critical shift in narrative. The anti-DEI movement wants companies to believe they’re on legally shaky ground. But the real legal momentum is behind inclusive policy. Companies that retreat are not minimizing risk—they may be inviting it.

 

1. Anchor DEI in Civil Rights Compliance, Not Political Rhetoric: Make it clear that your DEI programs are grounded in Title VII, Title IX, the ADA, and other civil rights laws. Shift the internal t an act of progressivism—it’s a fulfillment of existing legal obligations. Include this framing in policy audits, board briefings, and public reports.
2. Formalize Legal Defensibility Now: Work with legal counsel to document how your DEI programs avoid identity-based decision-making and instead focus on inclusive access, fairness, and barrier removal. Build an evidence base. The companies that survive legal scrutiny tomorrow are the ones preparing for it today.
3. Strengthen External Alignment: Engage in cross-sector coalitions, legal briefs, or joint statements—like those led by universities, firms, and now states—to demonstrate that your DEI position is not isolated. Strategic solidarity sends a message to courts, stakeholders, and the public: inclusion is a shared, lawful, and institutional priority.

ANTI-DEI PROPOSALS GET REJECTED AT THE BALLOT BOX AS LEADERS PUSH BACK

• 2025 Shareholder Anti-DEI Proposals and Voting Results
• McDonald’s Didn’t Roll Back Their DEI Efforts, They Evolved Them

 

OVERVIEW

Despite escalating political pressure and a coordinated attempt to dismantle corporate DEI, shareholders across the country have voted overwhelmingly against proposals aimed at scaling back diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

The message is clear: while culture wars may play out in politics and headlines, investors are siding with long-term value and inclusive growth. These rejections reaffirm the value of as a driver of talent, trust, and performance.

 

YUM! BRANDS

On May 15, 2025, Yum! Brands shareholders overwhelmingly rejected an anti-DEI proposal introduced by Oklahoma Treasurer Todd Russ. The proposal advocated for the creation of faith-based employee resource groups (ERGs), arguing that their absence could lead to discrimination risks. However, 99% of shareholders voted against the measure, aligning with the company’s board recommendation to reject it.

In its proxy statement, Yum! Brands emphasized its commitment to fostering an inclusive workplace: “The Company is committed to fostering a culture of community and belonging, where all employees can be their best, authentic selves, which includes authentic expression of their religious beliefs. To that end, we aim to reflect the customers and communities we serve across our global business and remove barriers to opportunity for our teams.”
 

SOUTHERN COMPANY

On May 21, 2025, Southern Company shareholders decisively rejected an anti-DEI proposal introduced by Inspire Investing, a faith-based fund manager. The proposal, which claimed that Southern’s DEI commitments posed discrimination risks, was opposed by 98% of shareholders, aligning with the company’s board recommendation.  

In its proxy statement, Southern Company emphasized its commitment to fostering an inclusive workplace: “We believe that investing in an equitable culture benefits employees, customers, communities and shareholders alike.”  

 

During the annual meeting’s Q&A session, President and CEO Chris Womack highlighted the company’s “Intentional Inclusion” program, stating that at Southern Company, “each and every employee has a fair shot at achieving their potential.”

 

REI

In May 2025, REI Co-op members delivered a sharp rebuke to company leadership by rejecting all three board-backed candidates—an unprecedented outcome widely seen as fallout from the company’s earlier endorsement of Doug Burgum for Secretary of the Interior. That January endorsement, retracted in April after public backlash, conflicted with REI’s environmental values and alienated many members.

New CEO Mary Beth Laughton admitted, “Signing that letter was a mistake… The actions the administration has taken on public lands are completely at odds with the longstanding values of REI.”

 

The REI Union, which led a successful “Vote No” campaign, is now calling for the appointment of two grassroots-backed candidates who were previously excluded from the ballot despite receiving over 10,000 member co-nominations.

 

AMAZON

At Amazon’s annual shareholder meeting on May 21, 2025, all eight external shareholder proposals were rejected, including one targeting the company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the specific vote percentages have not yet been disclosed, Amazon typically releases detailed results in a subsequent SEC filing (expected within four business days after the meeting).

 

MCDONALD’S 

At its annual meeting on May 20, 2025, McDonald’s Board of Directors unanimously urged shareholders to reject two anti-DEI proposals, calling one “unnecessary and overly prescriptive.” Final vote results are pending.

 

One proposal, from the conservative National Legal and Policy Center, called for McDonald’s to “consider eliminating discriminatory DEI goals” from executive compensation. The Board responded: “The proposal unduly interferes with the flexibility and judgment” of company leadership.

 

Back in January, EVP and Chief Legal Officer Desiree Ralls-Morrison addressed public criticism Media reports… overwhelmingly got it wrong.”

 

“Our commitment to inclusion is part of our heritage. We strive to be a place where opportunity abounds—no matter who you are or where you’re from. Diversity has always been, and continues to be, a competitive advantage.”

 

WALMART

Ahead of its June 5 annual meeting, Walmart’s Board is urging shareholders to reject an anti-DEI proposal from the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). The proposal questions delays in scaling back DEI initiatives and cites pressure from political activist Robby Starbuck. NCPPR asks why “it apparently took an external threat of public exposure” for Walmart to revise its DEI policies.

 

Walmart’s Board pushed back in its proxy statement: “We believe that a company culture where associates feel welcome and valued helps us attract and retain the talent that drives our business.”

BRIDGE POV

The latest round of shareholder votes sends a clear message: anti-DEI proposals are being unanimously rejected—not quietly, but emphatically. Across industries and company profiles, investors are rejecting attempts to roll back inclusion because they recognize what some political actors don’t a threat to shareholder value—it’s a safeguard for it.

 

This moment demands more than defense. It calls for offense. The companies winning in this climate aren’t just weathering the storm—they’re leveraging DEI as a forward-facing, risk-aware, and performance-driving strategy. Investors are rewarding clarity, not caution.

 

Three Forward Strategies for CEOs and Boards:

1. Shift from DEI Defense to Corporate Integrity: Stop treating DEI as an isolated initiative. Reframe it as an extension of your company’s values, ethics, and legal compliance. Align DEI with governance priorities like workforce transparency, antitrust vigilance, and responsible AI to make —this is how we lead responsibly.
2. Embed Inclusion into Capital Strategy: Move beyond HR metrics. Show how inclusion improves capital allocation, market expansion, and brand strength. Whether it’s product development or global growth, inclusion isn’t a sidecar—it’s the engine. Integrate DEI data into ESG and investor materials with the same rigor used for financial disclosures.
3. Make the Board the Voice of Stability: In politically volatile times, boards are the ultimate validators. Ensure your board is aligned, briefed, and equipped to answer the How does DEI protect shareholder value?” Prepare directors with shareholder talking points, risk scenarios, and regulatory trends so they can lead with authority, not apprehension.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) LAUNCHES CIVIL RIGHTS FRAUD INITIATIVE

• Justice Department Establishes Civil Rights Fraud Initiative 
• Deputy Attorney General Blanche Memo: Civil Rights Fraud Initiative

 

OVERVIEW

On May 19, the Department of Justice announced a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative—a coordinated effort by its Civil Rights, Civil Fraud, and Criminal Divisions to investigate and prosecute federal contractors and grant recipients under the False Claims Act. The initiative targets entities that certify compliance with civil rights laws while “knowingly” engaging in discriminatory practices, including “illegal” DEI programs.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative invokes the False Claims Act (FCA), a powerful enforcement tool traditionally used to combat financial fraud against the federal government. Under the FCA, it is unlawful for federal contractors or grantees to knowingly submit false claims or false certifications related to compliance with federal law. “Knowingly” includes not only actual knowledge, but also deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth—a high legal threshold.

 

Violations can result in steep civil penalties, including treble damages and fines, as well as potential criminal prosecution. The law also allows private whistleblowers to initiate claims on the government’s behalf and receive a portion of any financial recovery.

 

In the context of DEI, prosecution under the FCA would likely rely on the certification requirement introduced in Executive Order 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity), which mandates that recipients of federal funds affirm compliance with civil rights laws. However, this certification provision is currently under a federal injunction and cannot be enforced, following a ruling from a district court in Chicago.

BRIDGE POV

Like the recent executive orders, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative appears on the surface to be an enforcement of civil rights. But the intent tells a different story. This isn’t about protecting marginalized groups—it’s about chilling DEI through fear of prosecution.

 

The False Claims Act was never intended to silence equity so by reinterpreting it to treat equity efforts as fraud, the federal government is not safeguarding civil rights—it’s weaponizing them. This inversion of intent turns decades of civil rights law on its head. 

As troubling is the DOJ signaling a willingness to enforce certification provisions that a federal court has already enjoined from taking effect. 

 

This is not legal clarity. It’s strategic confusion. And it demands a different kind of corporate preparedness. Inclusion is not fraud. It’s a future-focused business practice and a lawful one when executed properly. Companies must prepare not just for enforcement—but for misenforcement. Because when the law is bent to serve politics, it’s the prepared who will prevail.

 

1. Know What You’re Certifying—and What You’re Not: Review every federal certification and grant-related DEI statement with legal counsel. Clarify what your organization is required to certify under current law—and ensure your practices align. Over-certification or vague affirmations could increase risk unnecessarily.
2. Separate DEI from Identity-Based Eligibility: Re-examine DEI programs to ensure they don’t confer benefits based on protected characteristics alone. Focus on access, fairness, and eliminating barriers—practices well within the law and harder to weaponize in enforcement.
3. Create an Internal FCA (False Claims Act) Risk Protocol: Establish a rapid-response framework for internal whistleblower claims and FCA-related reviews. Document your good faith efforts to comply with civil rights law and track ongoing litigation related to Executive Order 14173. Courts—not politics—will ultimately define the limits of enforcement.

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIRES (AND VERIZON PROVIDES) DISAVOWAL OF DEI PRACTICES TO SECURE MERGER APPROVAL

• Letter from Verizon Chief Legal Officer 
• FCC Approves Verizon-Frontier Merger 

 

OVERVIEW

On May 16, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved Verizon’s $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications. This approval was directly contingent upon Verizon’s agreement to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In a letter dated May 15 to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, Verizon’s Chief Legal Officer, Vandana Venkatesh, detailed the company’s commitment to eliminate DEI-related practices. These included removing DEI references from employee training materials, discontinuing workforce diversity goals, eliminating management compensation incentives tied to diversity metrics, and centralizing oversight of employee resource groups under its human resources department.  

 

FCC Chairman Carr, who has been vocal in his criticism of DEI programs, praised Verizon’s decision, stating that the company’s actions would ensure compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws and serve the public interest. This move aligns with the current federal administration’s broader efforts to curtail DEI programs in the corporate sector.

 

The merger, initially negotiated during the Biden administration, is expected to enhance Verizon’s fiber-optic infrastructure across 25 states, aiming to provide high-speed internet access to over one million homes annually. The deal is now anticipated to close in early 2026, pending additional state-level regulatory approvals.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Verizon-Frontier merger marks a striking example of how the Administration is leveraging every available tool of executive power to advance its anti-DEI agenda. While agencies like the EEOC and DOJ have formal authority to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws, the FCC does not. Yet in this case, the FCC played a pivotal role—not by enforcing law, but by conditioning regulatory approval on ideological alignment.

 

This expansion of executive pressure—using agencies outside their traditional enforcement purview—illustrates a broader strategy: to coerce corporate disavowal of DEI through regulatory gatekeeping rather than legal process.

 

Importantly, however, federal anti-discrimination law has not changed as a result of these actions. The legal standards governing workplace equity and inclusion remain intact. Companies should continue to assess their DEI policies in consultation with legal counsel to ensure alignment with Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, and other applicable statutes—not political trends.

BRIDGE POV

What happened with this merger isn’t about compliance—it’s about capitulation.

By conditioning merger approval on the disavowal of DEI, the FCC has overstepped its mission. This is not a regulatory agency enforcing the law—it’s a political instrument enforcing ideology. And it sets a dangerous precedent: that access to the levers of commerce—mergers, contracts, approvals—now hinges on surrendering your corporate values.

 

This is not just legal overreach. It’s economic blackmail and creates a slippery slope for companies seeking to preserve institutional independence while honoring its commitments to employees, customers, and the communities it serves.

When companies fold not because the law requires it—but because political actors demand it—they are not mitigating risk; they are compounding it. They invite further coercion. They signal that their values are negotiable. And they reinforce the very playbook designed to dismantle progress.

 

This is the moment for principled defiance—not performative neutrality.

 

1. Codify Your Corporate Values—and Lead From Them: Values shouldn’t be vulnerable to politics. Define and codify the principles that guide your organization—not just in a mission statement, but in your governance, partnerships, and operations. When political pressure arises, values aren’t something you reach for—they’re something you stand on. And sometimes upholding them means walking away from the deal. That’s not failure, it’s leading with radical integrity.
2. Preserve Strategic Independence Through Policy Firewalls: Ensure regulatory compliance, but don’t let regulatory bodies dictate your values. Create internal protocols that separate mission-driven initiatives—like DEI, sustainability, or community investment—from short-term business negotiations. When boards and executives can point to pre-established values-based policies, it’s harder for external actors to frame them as concessions.
3. Reclaim Narrative Control Before It’s Taken: Silence creates a vacuum. When values are challenged, speak clearly and early—through investor calls, board communications, and public channels. Explain not just what your company is doing, but why. The companies that maintain trust through turbulence are those that don’t flinch when it matters most.

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.

 

When: Thursday, May 29, 12-1pm ET
Where: Zoom

 

Join us this month for a look into the courageous content and conversations of BRIDGE25. 

 

Whether or not you were able to join us in Oceanside, we’ll recap some of the actionable strategies we heard from our community including:

1. Connecting workplace and marketplace impact
2. The paradigm shift from general and multicultural to inclusive market
3. How to ensure the democratization of AI is centered with inclusion
4. … and more!