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

THE DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL ASSOCIATION FORMS DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION WORKING GROUP

• Attorneys General Stand Firm on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility  

 

OVERVIEW
In a coordinated legal and strategic response to the Trump Administration’s anti-DEI executive orders, a growing coalition of public officials is pushing back.

 

As previously reported in Issue 13, on May 15, a group of 19 State Attorneys General, including New York AG Letitia James, filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging Executive Order 14151 and Executive Order 14173—federal actions seeking to dismantle diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs across government and beyond.

 

Now, 16 Democratic Attorneys General, led by Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, have taken their efforts a step further, launching a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Working Group. The mission: “Ensure that businesses, nonprofits and other organizations understand the importance of creating and maintaining diverse and legally compliant workplaces.”

 

Each Attorney General in the group has committed to treating employment discrimination as a strategic priority. States have begun issuing guidance clarifying the difference between illegal preferential treatment and lawful, business-critical DEIA practices. As one memo states: “The [Executive Orders] and related federal executive actions cannot and do not prohibit lawful DEIA practices and policies.”

 

The guidance also underscores that the current federal actions have “needlessly created widespread confusion,” conflating illegal practices with sound, legally protected DEIA strategies.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The formation of this Working Group is part of a broader legal and civic counter-offensive. Across sectors, a diverse coalition—including state attorneys general, civil rights organizations, municipalities, academic institutions, and business leaders—is mobilizing to challenge federal efforts that seek to chill or dismantle lawful DEIA commitments. 

 

What we are witnessing is not just legal pushback—it’s a coordinated, values-driven stand for clarity, compliance, and continuity in DEIA work. This growing response includes formal legal challenges to the executive orders, public-facing advocacy from trusted officials, and a unified affirmation that DEIA, done right, is not only lawful—but essential.

 

BRIDGE POV 

The formation of this DEI Working Group by 16 State Attorneys General is more than a symbolic gesture—it’s a powerful legal and political signal. At a time when ambiguity and chaos are being weaponized, these top law enforcement officials are drawing a sharp line: DEI done lawfully is not only allowed, it’s protected. For CEOs navigating risk and uncertainty, this should be read as both cover and catalyst. The business case remains intact—and now, so does the legal confidence to act.

 

This is not just about defense. It’s an opportunity for forward-looking companies to align to their values and commit to inclusion as a competitive differentiator, backed by the authority of the states’ highest legal offices. The private sector does not have to stand alone—and the companies that move with clarity and courage now will define the leadership standard for the future.

 

1. Anchor in What’s Legal—Not What’s Political: Regardless of where your company is based, federal law still protects many forms of DEI when implemented lawfully. Use the 16 AG’s guidance as a benchmark—even if your state isn’t represented. What’s lawful in one state can help guide smart, compliant practices across others.
2. Update Language, Not Commitments: Where needed, adjust public or internal framing to reflect legal precision—use clear terms over vague or polarizing language. But don’t abandon the substance.
3. Signal Alignment with Legal Authority—Even If Indirect: If your state is part of the AG Working Group, acknowledge and align with their guidance—it reinforces your legal footing. If not, reference the multistate guidance as a credible legal standard and signal that your DEI strategy reflects best practices grounded in federal law and supported by a growing coalition of legal authorities. This demonstrates your commitment to lawful, values-aligned inclusion—regardless of local politics.

ANTI-DEI PROPOSAL VOTES SIGNAL STRONG INVESTOR SUPPORT FOR INCLUSIVE CORPORATE PRACTICES

OVERVIEW

This season’s shareholder votes send a resounding signal: despite escalating political attacks, investors are standing firm. Proposal after proposal aimed at dismantling DEI was not just defeated—they were rejected by overwhelming margins, often 98–99%. Across industries, shareholders affirmed that inclusion is not a liability—it’s a business imperative.

 

MERCK & CO

In a decisive move, on May 27, 2025, Merck & Co. shareholders voted 99% against a proposal from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) that sought to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) milestones from executive compensation packages. The company’s board had recommended rejecting the proposal, emphasizing that DEI initiatives are integral to Merck’s strategic, financial, and human capital objectives.  

 

During the annual meeting, Merck Chairman and CEO Rob Davis reaffirmed the company’s commitment to DEI, stating:  “Our company has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion. It’s at the core of who we are, our values, and how we operate as a company. It’s also a strategic imperative. We remain dedicated to providing fair, equal and merit-based opportunities, preventing bias, and ensuring we have a vibrant and inclusive workplace. This commitment enables us to fully execute on the scientific method and catalyze contributions and innovations from across the enterprise. In turn, this allows us to fulfill our mission.”  

 

MCDONALD’S

At McDonald’s 2025 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting on May 20, 2025, investors decisively rejected an anti-DEI proposal introduced by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC). The proposal, which called for eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals from executive compensation plans, was defeated with a 99% vote against and only 1% in favor.

 

McDonald’s reaffirmed its commitment to inclusion. In a statement, the company emphasized: “McDonald’s commitment to Inclusion is part of our heritage – we strive to be a place where access to opportunity abounds – no matter who you are or where you’re from. Our success in the future builds on our history of embracing diversity as a competitive advantage.”

 

CHEVRON

At Chevron’s annual meeting, shareholders rejected three stockholder proposals, including one calling for a report on the company’s human rights practices. While not explicitly labeled as anti-DEI, the proposal’s rejection reflects a broader decline in investor interest in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) resolutions.

 

BRIDGE POV

The message from investors is clear: DEI is not a political liability—it’s a strategic asset. Companies that stay the course are not just surviving the backlash; they’re earning the confidence of shareholders who understand that inclusive practices drive long-term value. The private sector is being asked to choose: bend to political pressure or stay anchored in principles and performance. The most resilient companies are choosing both values and valuation.

 

1. Reframe DEI as Business Strategy, Not Social Program: Make the business case crystal clear: tie DEI efforts to growth, innovation, market reach, and talent outcomes—not just values or optics. Use data, not declarations.
2. Proactively Educate Boards and Investors: Get ahead of the noise. Provide your board and investors with clear language on why your DEI strategy exists, what risks it mitigates, and how it supports long-term performance. Don’t wait for a shareholder challenge—preempt it with clarity.
3. Audit Executive Incentives Without Abandoning Inclusion: In this moment, some companies may be tweaking how DEI shows up in performance reviews or compensation. That’s fine—but don’t erase it. Instead, align incentives with measurable, market-relevant outcomes like equitable hiring pipelines, inclusive product development, and market representation.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR JENNER & BLOCK, WILMERHALE IN LAWSUITS AGAINST TRUMP

• Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block: Executive Order #14246
• Addressing Risks from WilmerHale: Executive Order #14250
• Jenner & Block LLP v. US Department Of Justice  
• Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr LLP v. Executive Office Of The President

 

OVERVIEW

As covered in earlier issues (6, 8, and 12), the Trump Administration issued a series of Executive Orders targeting law firms that represented political opponents—most notably Perkins Coie. These orders revoked security clearances and framed the actions as part of a broader effort to dismantle DEI-related practices and enforce political loyalty under the guise of national security and anti-discrimination.

 

On May 7, Perkins Coie secured a major legal victory when a federal judge granted summary judgment in its favor, permanently enjoining the Executive Order. On May 23, Jenner & Block obtained a similar summary judgment order against the Trump Administration. Just days later, on May 27, a federal judge struck down the Executive Order targeting WilmerHale, describing it as “a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected speech.”

 

All three firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—chose to litigate rather than negotiate with the administration, rejecting efforts to avoid conflict through private settlement. They were joined by Susman Godfrey, which also challenged the orders and received a temporary restraining order. To date, three of the four firms have now had the Executive Orders against them permanently blocked.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

As previously reported in Issue 12, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on May 2 that the Trump Administration's revocation of Perkins Coie's security clearances violated the First Amendment. The court found no evidence of illegal conduct, only viewpoint discrimination.

 

Since then, both Jenner & Block and WilmerHale have secured similar rulings. In the Jenner & Block decision, the court held that the firm was improperly singled out for its representation of clients disfavored by the Administration—calling the Executive Order a direct violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against government retaliation for protected expression.

 

On May 27, the court issued its strongest rebuke yet, striking down the Executive Order against WilmerHale as "a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech." This language underscores the severity of the Administration's overreach and affirms the role of the courts in checking retaliatory political action.

 

With three out of four firms now permanently shielded from enforcement, and the fourth (Susman Godfrey) still protected by a temporary injunction, it is likely that the remaining order will also be struck down. These rulings not only uphold the constitutional rights of the individual firms—they also signal to the more than 500 law firms that filed supportive briefs that the rule of law still holds.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This is what leadership looks like—measured not by how loudly you speak in safe rooms, but by how firmly you stand when power attacks. Four of the most respected law firms in the country didn’t flinch when targeted by executive orders designed to punish them for representing the “wrong” clients or for publicly supporting DEI. They didn’t water down their values, they didn’t back-channel for protection, and they didn’t settle. They fought. They stood their ground. And they won.

 

Let’s be clear: these were not soft threats. The federal government revoked security clearances, weaponized national security language, and tried to make examples out of these firms through intimidation. The legal victories that followed aren’t just procedural—they are constitutional. The courts affirmed what every values-driven leader needs to know: you cannot be punished for standing up for inclusion. Not by the state. Not by shareholders. Not by silence.

 

This moment isn’t just vindication—it’s instruction. Because while the courtroom battle played out in legal briefs and injunctions, the leadership lesson is universal: capitulation is not a risk strategy. It is a reputational liability. The safest place to be right now is standing on firm legal ground, anchored in clear values, and surrounded by public accountability.

 

For CEOs, this is a choice point in how you manage risk - by retreating or by leading through it. These firms stood tall in the face of political retribution, not by being reckless but by being rigorous. They assessed the law, understood the stakes, and acted with discipline and courage. And the law held.

 

The question is never whether the storm will come—the question is always how you will face it when it does. And when companies face it with courage, they will earn more than court victories. They’ll earn trust. Loyalty. And legacy.

 

1. Fight the Right Fights: When the law is on your side, retreat is not risk management—it’s reputational damage. Know your rights, assert them, and make it clear you won’t compromise your principles to avoid discomfort. The firms that stood up didn’t just survive—they set the precedent.
2. Codify Your Convictions: Align your legal, executive, and communications teams around what you believe, what you do, and why it’s lawful. Clarity isn’t just internal armor—it’s an external signal. The companies that lead with discipline and transparency are the ones best positioned to withstand scrutiny.
3. Don’t Just Defend—Define: In moments like these, silence concedes the narrative. Use legal wins like these as an opportunity to reassert your commitment to lawful inclusion—and define the standard for others. You don’t have to wait for permission to lead. You just have to decide it’s worth it.

NPR AND SEVERAL LOCAL AFFILIATES FILE SUIT AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

• ​​Ending Taxpayer Subsidization Of Biased Media: Executive Order#14290 
• NPR et al v. Trump et al

 

OVERVIEW

National Public Radio (NPR) and three Colorado-based public media affiliates have filed suit against the Trump Administration, challenging the revocation of federal funding as an unconstitutional act of political retaliation. The lawsuit argues that the Executive Order targeting NPR violates the First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association.

 

The administration’s action appears to be based on claims that NPR disseminates “left-wing propaganda” and operates with political bias. The plaintiffs assert that this rationale amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and reflects a broader strategy outlined in Project 2025—a policy blueprint that includes defunding public media and using federal levers to suppress dissenting voices.

 

The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the Executive Order during litigation and a permanent injunction declaring the order unconstitutional. In a public statement, NPR CEO Katherine Maher said: “Public media was established to inform the American public and uphold American democratic values. Trump’s Executive Order is directly counter to Congress’s longstanding intent...to foster vibrant institutions that achieve that mission, serving all Americans independent of political influence.”

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This lawsuit closely mirrors the legal strategy and constitutional arguments used in other successful challenges to Executive Orders targeting private entities for political retribution—including those brought by Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale. Like those cases, NPR and its affiliates are arguing that the government cannot weaponize federal authority to punish protected speech or viewpoints it disfavors.

 

This action also reflects priorities outlined in Project 2025, which calls for defunding public media and reshaping federal agencies to reflect ideological alignment with the administration. The lawsuit frames the Executive Order as part of this broader agenda—and a direct violation of both First Amendment protections and the legislative intent of the Public Broadcasting Act.

 

As with the other recent rulings, courts will be asked to determine whether the Administration’s actions constitute viewpoint discrimination and whether such retaliation is unconstitutional. Early precedent strongly suggests that NPR’s legal claims have merit.

 

BRIDGE POV 

This isn’t just about NPR—it’s about the precedent. When the federal government uses funding as a weapon to silence dissent, we cross from disagreement into authoritarian playbook territory. The revocation of NPR’s funding doesn’t just threaten journalism—it threatens the principle that disagreement with power is not disloyalty, and that public institutions serve the people, not the party in charge.

 

At stake is more than speech, it’s institutional autonomy. The lawsuit brought by NPR and its affiliates is not isolated. It’s part of a growing legal firewall against a set of tactics previewed in Project 2025: defund, discredit, and dismantle any organization that doesn’t conform. 

 

We’ve seen this same pattern in the attacks on DEI, on law firms, on federal agencies, and now on independent media. For leaders across sectors, the message is t save you. Institutions that stand firm, act swiftly, and anchor in law and mission are the ones preserving not just their rights—but the civic norms that allow business, media, and democracy to function at all.

 

1. Recognize the Broader Playbook: What’s happening to NPR is part of a larger strategy. Monitor how other independent institutions—especially those rooted in truth-telling, equity, or accountability—are being targeted. These attacks may shift sectors, but the tactics remain the same.
2. Prepare for Retaliatory Risk—Even If You’re Not in Media: Legal, communications, and executive teams should scenario-plan for politically motivated backlash. Understand your vulnerabilities and have a response plan grounded in law, values, and speed.
3. Defend Institutional Autonomy-Not Just Your Own: The erosion of one institution’s independence sets a precedent for the erosion of others. Whether it’s public media, higher ed, or law firms, leaders must be willing to defend institutional autonomy—because once politicized interference is normalized, no sector is off-limits.

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

• AT&T Refuses to Follow Verizon

 

UPDATE

In Issue 13, we reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved Verizon’s $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications contingent upon Verizon’s agreement to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. 

 

AT&T, by contrast, has taken a different stance. CEO John Stankey has publicly stated that the company will not alter its DEI policies to satisfy political pressure. He emphasized that AT&T’s approach has always been merit-based and inclusive, focused on ensuring every employee feels a sense of belonging and has an equal opportunity to succeed. 

 

Stankey also acknowledged however that the $5.75 billion deal to acquire Lumen Technologies - aimed at expanding its fiber optic network - does align with the administration’s stated goal of creating jobs for Americans.

 

Notably, AT&T has made some adjustments to its DEI initiatives in recent months evolving language to focus more explicitly on “culture and inclusion.”

 

This is a developing story which we will continue to monitor closely.

ACTING COMMISSIONER ANDREA LUCAS ISSUES PUBLIC REPORT ON THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S (EEOC) FIRST 120 DAYS

• EEOC Delivers Historic Results for American Workers in First 120 Days  
   

OVERVIEW

On May 22, 2025, the EEOC published a report reaffirming the actions they have taken over the past 120 days aligned with the executive orders issued by the administration. While the report frames the agency’s work as a recommitment to civil rights enforcement, it reflects a significant ideological and operational shift in how those rights are being interpreted and applied.

 

The EEOC highlights four priority areas:

• DEI-Related Enforcement: The agency has launched investigations and taken legal action against employers whose diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are alleged to violate anti-discrimination laws. The report criticizes the use of demographic data in employment decisions and claims that some DEI practices amount to unlawful race- or sex-based preferences.
• Religious Accommodation and Anti-Christian Bias: The EEOC reports increased focus on religious freedom cases, including enforcement actions related to Sabbath observance and vaccine-related religious exemptions. The agency also references its role in the federal Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.
• National Origin Discrimination: The Commission emphasizes actions taken against employers allegedly favoring foreign nationals over U.S. citizens, particularly in tech and contracting sectors.
• Biological Sex Protections: The EEOC has begun reasserting a narrow interpretation of sex-based protections under Title VII, emphasizing biological sex over gender identity and positioning this shift as a defense of women’s rights.
   

In addition, two internal memos were issued to reorient the agency’s approach to federal employee complaints—ending the use of monetary sanctions against federal agencies during EEO complaints and emphasizing the “presumption of innocence” in investigations.

 

While the Commission presents these efforts as a return to “neutrality,” civil rights advocates and legal scholars have noted that many of these initiatives reflect a redefinition of equity enforcement.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The priorities outlined in the EEOC’s 120-day report closely mirror the executive orders issued by Trump and reflect a broader effort by the administration to redirect civil rights enforcement. Rather than protecting historically marginalized groups, these actions signal a shift toward elevating claims brought by white men and cisgender women—reframing inclusion as exclusion and equity as overreach.

 

It is critical to note, however, that these administrative actions do not change the underlying federal anti-discrimination laws. Title VII and other civil rights statutes remain intact. Companies should continue to work closely with legal counsel to ensure that their DEI initiatives are aligned with established legal standards and grounded in lawful, business-relevant practices.

 

BRIDGE POV

The 120-day report is not just a summary—it’s a signal. The EEOC, under Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, claims to be protecting civil rights while systematically redefining them in ideological, more politicized terms. This isn’t enforcement—it’s erasure dressed up as equity. What’s being framed as a “return to neutrality” is, in fact, a calculated dismantling of DEI infrastructure under the guise of protecting religious freedom, biological sex, and merit-based opportunity.

 

By targeting DEI-related practices, scrutinizing lawful demographic reporting, and recasting inclusion as potential discrimination, this version of the EEOC is using civil rights law not as a shield for the marginalized, but as a sword against progress.

But here’s what hasn’t changed: the law. The core civil rights protections that fortify workplace DEI remain intact. This is the moment to get clearer. When enforcement becomes political, clarity becomes your best defense—and courage, your best strategy.

 

1. Don’t Mistake Politics for Policy: The EEOC’s current posture reflects an ideological shift—not a legal one. Federal anti-discrimination law has not changed. Companies should resist the temptation to preemptively scale back DEI efforts out of fear. Instead, assess your programs against legal standards—not political noise.
2. Audit for Compliance, Not Capitulation: Conduct a thorough legal review of your DEI programs to ensure they are compliant, transparent, and clearly tied to business objectives. Use this moment to tighten language and clarify intent—not to retreat. A well-documented, legally grounded strategy is your best protection.
3. Reassert the Business Case—Loudly and Legally: Reaffirm your commitment to DEI in language that’s both value-aligned and law-aligned. When scrutiny increases, so should your clarity. Stand firm, stay smart, and lead with both conviction and legal discipline.

EEOC ACTING COMMISSIONER ANDREA LUCAS ISSUED A PUBLIC “MESSAGE” REGARDING THE USE OF EEO-1 DATA

• Message from EEOC Acting Chair Lucas about Opening of 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection   

 

OVERVIEW

An EEO-1 is a mandatory workforce demographic report filed annually by private employers with 100 or more employees or federal contractors with 50 or more employees. The report collects data on employees by race, sex and job category for equal employment oversight.

 

In a public “message” issued in May, EEOC Acting Commissioner Andrea Lucas warned that EEO-1 data may not be used “to take any employment actions based on, or motivated in whole or in part by, an employee’s race, sex, or other protected characteristics” or “to facilitate unlawful employment discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics in violation of Title VII.” 

 

“The message” further emphasized that even when a facially neutral policy produces unequal outcomes by race or sex (i.e., a disparate impact), that does not justify taking action based on those characteristics.
 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This “message” from Acting Chair Andrea Lucas does not appear to carry the weight of formal EEOC enforcement guidance, as it was not issued or approved by a majority of Commissioners. Nor does it alter or conflict with existing law; it reiterates that employers covered by Title VII may not engage in unlawful employment practices based on protected characteristics.

 

Under current Supreme Court precedent—most notably Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)—employers may not take race- or sex-conscious actions to address demographic disparities unless they have a “strong basis in evidence” to believe such actions are necessary to avoid liability for disparate impact discrimination. This standard sets a high bar for justifying race- or gender-based employment decisions, and Lucas’s message appears consistent with that legal framework.

 

Importantly, no changes to federal anti-discrimination law have resulted from this statement. Companies should continue to consult legal counsel to ensure their DEI strategies align with current legal standards across applicable civil rights statutes.

 

BRIDGE POV

This “message” is not new law—it’s narrative. While framed as a legal reminder, it functions more like a warning shot, designed to chill how companies use EEO-1 data to inform equity efforts. But here’s the reality: nothing has changed in federal anti-discrimination law. The bar remains high for taking race- or sex-conscious action, and that standard has been clear since Ricci v. DeStefano.

 

What’s changed is tone and posture. By elevating this message, the EEOC is signaling a political stance—not a new legal requirement. Companies must be careful not to mistake posturing for policy. Retreating from lawful, data-informed DEI strategies in response to fear—not fact—is not risk mitigation. It’s mission-drift.

 

Now is the time to lead with legal clarity, not compliance theater.

 

1. Use EEO-1 Data Legally and Strategically: EEO-1 data should not guide individual employment decisions—but it remains critical for diagnosing systemic inequities and informing broader DEI strategies. Use it for insight, not quota-setting.
2. Clarify Purpose, Document Practice: Review how demographic data is used across your organization. Ensure it informs policy—not drives protected-class decisions. Align your practices with Title VII and document how decisions are made to preempt misinterpretation.
3. Don’t Let Chilling Language Chill Progress: This message is not an enforcement action. Avoid overreacting. Continue to build equity-focused initiatives that are business-aligned, legally compliant, and clearly articulated. The smartest companies aren’t retreating—they’re refining.

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, June 26th from 12-1p ET.