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.*

 

PLEASE NOTE: INCLUDED IN THIS ISSUE IS A SPECIAL SECTION THAT REVEALS THE FINDINGS OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE MELTZER CENTER AND CATALYST

 

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. 

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.

BEST BUY SHAREHOLDERS REJECT ANTI-DEI PROPOSAL

OVERVIEW

The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) continues to face defeat in its attempts to convince shareholders to abandon inclusion.  To date, every single proposal they have submitted in 2025 have been rejected by corporate shareholders.

 

Last week we reported on a number of shareholder votes rejecting anti-DEI and/or anti-LGTBQ proposals.  Tallies are now in for the following:

• ALPHABET:  99% (1% abstained) voted no on two proposals
• AMERICAN AIRLINES:  98.2% voted no
• CATERPILLAR: 97% voted no
• TARGET: Updated to 92% against

 

BEST BUY

At its annual meeting on June 13, 2025, Best Buy shareholders rejected a proposal urging the company to withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. The proposal, submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, claimed the index promoted “hyper-partisan, divisive and increasingly radical criteria” and argued that continued participation posed a fiduciary risk. In response in their proxy statement, Best Buy’s Board urged a “No” vote, stating the company is committed to “understanding the needs of our diverse global workforce and inclusive culture as part of its day‑to-day operations.”  

 

While the tallies are currently not available, it is understood that the proposal was defeated by a wide margin.

 

BRIDGE POV

So far in 2025, shareholders at 27 major U.S. companies have voted to reject anti‑DEI proposals underscoring that investor rejection of politicized rollbacks is holding firm. Across sectors, shareholders continue to issue a clear mandate: inclusion is a business expectation. These are not symbolic wins—they are strategic signals.

 

1. Treat Shareholder Outcomes as Strategic Cover, Not Just Data: These votes are more than results—they are a shield. Use them in boardrooms, regulatory discussions, and stakeholder messaging to reinforce that your DEI commitments are aligned with fiduciary duty and long-term value creation.
2. Anchor DEI in Business Performance, Not Social Framing: The proposals that fail most decisively are those met with a clear performance narrative. Make sure your DEI agenda is tied to outcomes—innovation, risk mitigation, talent acquisition—not positioned as moral signaling.
3. Anticipate 2026: The Next Proxy Fight Starts Now: The volume and velocity of these proposals are unlikely to slow. Begin scenario-planning now with legal, investor relations, and DEI leaders. Prepare language, update documentation, and clarify governance roles before the next cycle begins.

NIH ORDERED TO RESTORE CANCELLED GRANTS UNDER ANTI-DEI CERTIFICATION POLICY 

• NOT-OD-25-090: Notice of Civil Rights Term and Condition of Award   
• Judge Rules Some Nih Grant Cuts Illegal, Saying He's Never Seen Such Discrimination In 40 Years
   

OVERVIEW

As reported in Issue 10, on April 26, 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—operating under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—issued Notice NOT-OD-25-090, adding a new condition to 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 retroactively and prospectively, injecting new scrutiny into how DEI-related work is defined and funded.

 

Over 700 NIH grants have been terminated by the NIH while also doubling the number of grant rejections so far in 2025.

 

On June 16, a federal district court in Massachusetts ordered NIH to reinstate canceled grants, siding with a coalition of sixteen states and the American Public Health Association that challenged the rule. From the bench, the judge described NIH’s actions as “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.” A written opinion will follow, but the ruling immediately halts enforcement of the policy against the plaintiffs.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The court found that the government failed to justify the cancellation of equity-related research grants on lawful, non-ideological grounds. While NIH claimed the grants violated anti-discrimination laws, it presented no evidence that the grantees or their work were actually discriminatory.

 

The court ruled that terminating funding based solely on ideological disapproval—without proof of legal violations—constitutes unlawful discrimination by the government. The decision reinforces a clear standard: federal enforcement actions must be grounded in evidence, not ideology.

 

BRIDGE POV

This week’s federal court order restoring canceled NIH grants is a reminder that ideological disapproval is not a legal basis for enforcement. While the court did not rule on the merits of DEI efforts themselves—it ruled that the government cannot revoke funding without clear, evidence-based justification. Alleging unlawful discrimination is not enough; it must be proven.

 

For executive teams, the message is clear: while political rhetoric may escalate, the courts are increasingly drawing a line. Institutions that stay disciplined—anchoring DEI in compliance, science, and business value—are better protected, and better positioned to lead.

 

1. Audit for Exposure in Federal Funding Streams: If your organization receives federal research or public health funding, review certification language, grant compliance protocols, and internal DEI documentation. Ensure clarity around lawful DEI activities and prepare legal positioning in case similar policies emerge in other agencies.
2. Use Legal Precedent to Strengthen Internal Confidence: Share this ruling with legal, compliance, and public affairs teams. The decision offers formal language and precedent to counter claims that DEI commitments are legally risky. Use it to reinforce internal messaging that inclusion is not only lawful—it’s protected.
3. Separate Political Noise from Governance Reality: This ruling underscores that not all political actions carry legal weight. Boards and executive teams should distinguish between politicized pressure and judicial enforceability—and respond accordingly. Maintain a posture that is legally sound, fact-based, and strategically aligned.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SUES TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ALLEGING FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

• American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms
• American Bar Association files suit to halt government intimidation of lawyers and law firms 
• American Bar Association v. Trump, et al

 

OVERVIEW

As covered in previous issues (6, 8, 12 and 14), the Trump Administration issued a series of Executive Orders targeting law firms that represented political opponents. 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 2, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled 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.

 

Then on May 23 and May 27, respectively, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale 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.” Susman Godfrey, the fourth firm named, remains protected under a temporary injunction.

 

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.

 

Now, the American Bar Association (ABA)—the nation’s largest professional legal body—has filed suit against the Trump Administration, alleging a broader campaign of intimidation against lawyers and firms based on client representation and political association. The ABA’s complaint cites a “chilling effect across the legal profession,” claiming the administration’s actions have impaired access to counsel and undermined the justice system.

 

Like the prior cases, the ABA suit is grounded in First Amendment protections—free speech and free association. If successful, the ruling would extend legal protections beyond the four named firms, effectively blocking the federal government from using Executive Orders to pressure or punish lawyers based on viewpoint or affiliation.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

All four rulings—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—were issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, each finding that the Trump Administration’s actions violated the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association. The courts consistently held that revoking security clearances based on client representation or viewpoint constituted unconstitutional retaliation.

 

The ABA’s lawsuit builds on this legal foundation, but extends the stakes. While the prior rulings protect the individual firms, a successful outcome in the ABA case would set a broader legal bar, effectively prohibiting future administrations from issuing similar retaliatory orders across the legal profession. It would also reaffirm that legal representation—even in politically sensitive matters—is constitutionally protected activity, not grounds for government sanction.

 

BRIDGE POV

Federal court rulings striking down the retaliation against major law firms are decisively  failing in court reinforcing the use of government power to intimidate or punish legal advocacy has constitutional limits. Each decision reaffirms that client representation is unequivocally protected speech and association under the Constitution.

 

The  ABA filing suit extends the stakes - moving the implications beyond individual firms to the integrity of the profession itself. This is a clear reminder that compliance with law, not alignment with power, is the standard that holds in court. In an increasingly polarized environment, staying grounded in legal principle and ethical discipline — not political calculation or capitulation—is the strongest line of defense against overreach.

 

1. Reinforce Legal Independence in Public Messaging: If your organization engages counsel on contentious issues, ensure your public positioning frames that legal work as protected, professional, and non-political. Reaffirm that the right to representation is not up for debate.
2. Align Legal, Risk, and DEI Teams on Retaliation Readiness: These rulings show how quickly political pressure can escalate into legal retaliation. Ensure internal teams are aligned on protocols for rapid response, documentation, and public positioning if targeted.
3. Monitor the ABA Case as a Sector-Wide Precedent: The ABA lawsuit could set a formal legal barrier against government intimidation across the profession. Track its outcome not just as legal news, but as strategic insulation for any institution doing work that could be politically targeted.

NEW DOJ CIVIL DIVISION MEMO TARGETS DEI UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

• DOJ Civil Division Issues Enforcement Priorities Memorandum 

 

OVERVIEW

The newly appointed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division has issued a formal memorandum outlining the Division’s five enforcement priorities under the Trump Administration. The areas of focus are:

 

1. Combatting discriminatory practices and policies
2. Ending antisemitism
3. Protecting women and children
4. Ending “sanctuary” jurisdictions
5. Prioritizing denaturalization of naturalized U.S. citizens

 

Each priority aligns directly with previous Executive Orders and reflects a coordinated shift in enforcement posture.

 

Most notably, under the first priority, the memo states that the Civil Division will target “illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities,” and will pursue False Claims Act violations against federal fund recipients that “knowingly violate civil rights laws.” The language signals a broad interpretation of what constitutes “discriminatory” DEI activity—and introduces potential federal fraud liability for grantees, contractors, and institutions operating DEI programs tied to government funding.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 governs workplace discrimination in the private sector and vests primary enforcement authority with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Department of Justice (DOJ) has limited enforcement authority under Title VII, typically exercised through its Civil Rights Division, primarily in actions involving state and local governments.

 

The newly issued memorandum signals a broader enforcement posture across the Department. While the Civil Rights Division continues to lead enforcement under Title VII and other civil rights statutes, the Civil Division is expected to lead False Claims Act investigations and prosecutions, particularly where DEI-related certifications are alleged to be false or misleading.

 

Under the False Claims Act, violations occur when a federal grantee or contractor submits false or fraudulent representations to the government. Entities subject to the January 21, 2025 Executive Order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity should ensure they are in full compliance with Title VII when submitting federal certifications, as misalignment could be interpreted as a false claim.

 

Although multiple courts have issued injunctions against enforcement of the anti-DEI certification requirement, as of June 13, 2025, the federal contractor portal includes a new pop-up requiring confirmation of no false claims before invoice submission. Companies should consult legal counsel before certifying compliance.

 

BRIDGE POV

Despite active court injunctions blocking enforcement of anti-DEI certification requirements, the Department of Justice is attempting to advance its enforcement agenda through a new pathway. By positioning DEI-related activity as a potential False Claims Act violation, the Civil Division is shifting away from traditional civil rights enforcement toward a funding-based compliance model.

 

While the law remains clear—injunctions are in place and civil rights protections still govern—this memorandum signals how the administration may test the boundaries of existing legal restraints. 

 

1. Review All DEI-Related Federal Certifications Through Legal Counsel: Certifications tied to nondiscrimination or merit-based requirements should be treated as legal attestations—not administrative formalities. Ensure legal review before submission.
2. Clarify Internal Alignment Across Legal, Compliance, and DEI Functions: Ensure all teams are operating from a shared understanding of current legal protections, active injunctions, and what is (and is not) enforceable under current law.
3. Reframe DEI in Federally Funded Programs With Legal Precision: Where DEI initiatives intersect with federal funds, confirm that language, policies, and metrics are clearly aligned with Title VII and race-neutral, nondiscriminatory standards.

DOJ ANNOUNCES FIRST SETTLEMENT UNDER NEW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

• Justice Department Fighting Discrimination Against U.S. Workers 

 

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Department of Justice has reached a settlement with Epik Solutions, a California-based tech recruiting firm, for alleged violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act—specifically favoring foreign H‑1B visa holders over qualified U.S. workers. On June 10, 2025, DOJ announced the settlement requiring Epik Solutions to pay a $71,916 civil penalty, revise its recruitment and hiring policies, complete anti-discrimination training, and cease placing job postings excluding U.S. applicants.

 

This marks the first enforcement action under the relaunched “Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative,” signaling DOJ’s intensified focus on ensuring lawful hiring practices and protecting American workers. 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This case was brought under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring based on citizenship status or national origin. The Department of Justice alleged that Epik Solutions gave unlawful preference to foreign H‑1B visa holders over qualified U.S. workers.

 

The enforcement action was led by the Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section and marks the first case under the DOJ’s relaunched Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative. This initiative focuses on safeguarding employment opportunities for U.S. citizens and ensuring that employers comply with federal hiring laws. The case underscores DOJ’s emphasis on enforcing existing anti-discrimination statutes through targeted investigations into hiring practices.

 

BRIDGE POV

The DOJ’s settlement with Epik Solutions signals renewed focus on employment-related enforcement under the Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative. While this case involved citizenship-based discrimination under the Immigration and Nationality Act, it reinforces DOJ’s broader emphasis on compliance-driven hiring practices—especially for companies operating under federal oversight or receiving federal funds.

 

This is not a shift in legal authority, but it is a signal of tightened enforcement posture. Employers should expect greater scrutiny of how hiring decisions align with federal anti-discrimination laws—regardless of whether the focus is citizenship, race, or other protected categories.

 

Actionable Strategies for Executive Teams

 

1. Audit Hiring Practices for Legal Alignment: Ensure your hiring policies and practices are consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title VII, and applicable state laws. This includes how job postings are framed, how candidates are screened, and how preferences are documented.
2. Ensure Workforce Compliance Extends Beyond DEI: While DEI remains a strategic focus, employment compliance extends to other protected categories. Partner with legal teams to ensure your practices meet broader civil rights standards—especially for federal contractors.
3. Reinforce Compliance Ownership Across Business Functions: Make sure hiring, legal, and compliance teams are fully coordinated on how employment decisions are made, recorded, and reviewed—especially in regulated or high-visibility roles. Clarity and documentation are critical to risk management.

NEW DATA CONFIRMS LEGAL AND BUSINESS RISKS OF DEI RETREAT

• Risks Of Retreat: The Enduring Inclusion Imperative  

 

OVERVIEW

The Meltzer Center and Catalyst surveyed 2,500 U.S. business leaders, legal professionals, and employees to assess the impacts of cutting DEI initiatives amid legal, political, and social headwinds. Their report, Risks of Retreat: The Enduring Inclusion Imperative, reveals that stepping back from DEI is far from neutral—it brings substantial risk across multiple dimensions.

 

• Legal concerns: 83% of C-suite leaders and 88% of legal leaders believe maintaining or expanding DEI mitigates legal risk—and rather than reduce liability, abandoning inclusion increases vulnerability to traditional discrimination claims
• Talent and retention: 76% of employees, rising to 86% of Gen Z, report they are more likely to stay at a company with robust DEI programs, while 61% of Gen Z would not consider applying to a company without them
• Financial & reputation: 77% of executives link DEI to improved financial outcomes and brand trust; consumers and employees alike reward companies with inclusion-centered practices

 

In addition to these risks, the study notes the “three Ps” legal framework for building resilient DEI: eliminating preferential treatment, avoiding protected-class focus, and ensuring palpable benefit tied to merit—a structure leaders can use to assess and optimize current programs.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. While recent efforts—most notably by the Trump Administration—have sought to use Title VII to challenge DEI initiatives as “reverse discrimination” against white, male, or cisgender individuals, the overwhelming majority of Title VII claims continue to be filed by racial and gender minorities.

 

This dual exposure means that companies must balance both sides of the risk spectrum. As reflected in the Meltzer Center and Catalyst findings, many legal and executive leaders are now weighing the more established and statistically likely risks from traditional discrimination claims more heavily than the less frequent but politically salient reverse discrimination challenges.

 

To navigate this complexity, companies should continue to work closely with legal counsel to ensure that DEI efforts remain fully compliant with all federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws—and are framed to meet evolving enforcement expectations without abandoning their foundational goals.

 

BRIDGE POV

The research from the Meltzer Center and Catalyst reinforces what BRIDGE has said all along: politics is not a business strategy and operationalizing inclusion across the organization reduces vulnerabilities and mitigates risk.

 

The stakes for business, leadership, and the future of inclusive governance have never been clearer. Understanding the transformational opportunity of inclusion when extended across organizational, marketing management, commercial, communications, in-store and AI practices in how companies see, serve and show up in the marketplace is critical to business growth and future proofing.

 

DEI is not about checking a box. It’s about building organizations capable of serving, hiring, and scaling with the full complexity of the world they operate in. It is about bridging workplace to marketplace impact for exponential higher returns on business outcomes.

 

The risk of walking away from inclusion is not theoretical. It is legal. It is reputational. It is operational. And above all, it is strategic. Companies should not be debating whether to retreat—they must recalibrate how to move forward, with clarity and legal discipline and in full partnership with their DEI leaders. 

 

This moment demands disciplined optimism, radical integrity and courageous leadership—the kind that holds the line when headlines swirl, when political winds shift, and when pressure mounts to dilute the very strategies that build enduring, future-facing businesses.

 

Compliance is not a ceiling. It is the floor. Inclusion is not a liability. It is leadership. Culture is not a philosophy. It’s how you win.

 

1. Reinforce DEI as Core Business Infrastructure: Treat DEI as a framework that underpins workforce performance, customer relevance, and brand trust. Audit inclusion maturity across talent, marketing, management, commercial, communications, in-store, and AI practices—and resource it accordingly.
2. Reposition DEI as a Business Function, Not an HR Program: The time is now to move DEI out of the margins and into the core. Structure DEI as a business opportunity with direct accountability to the CEO—fully integrated with strategy, legal, and commercial decision-making. Visibility and reporting lines should reflect its enterprise-wide impact.
3. Treat Culture as Operational Strategy: Culture is not soft infrastructure—it’s the system that determines how decisions get made, who gets heard, and how people perform. Codify inclusion into leadership expectations, team dynamics, and accountability mechanisms. Culture clarity drives business clarity.

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.

 

Pride is not just about celebration. It’s about visibility, safety, and the fundamental right to exist without fear. This year, with LGBTQ+ rights under coordinated attack, it is only fitting that our June call will honor Pride month. Join us as we discuss the complexities this population faces and how we can support them.