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. 

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.

PROXY SEASON 2025: A DEFINING LINE ON DEI

The 2025 proxy season has now formally closed, concluding what became a clear referendum on corporate diversity. This year’s season followed the standard rhythm: early filings beginning in late February, peak activity throughout April and May, and final votes wrapping by mid-June. What set this cycle apart was the volume—and the resounding rejection—of proposals aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments inside major companies.

 

Anti-DEI proposals, many of them coordinated by politically motivated organizations including National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), and Strive Asset Management, focused on stripping diversity metrics from executive compensation, ending inclusive hiring disclosures, and reframing DEI as a risk to business performance. Yet in vote after vote, shareholders rejected that premise outright. Across companies the support for these proposals rarely broke 2%. The pattern held firm: capital markets want companies to stay the course on DEI.

 

This wasn’t an accident. In many of these meetings, CEOs and boards directly addressed the proposals and reaffirmed the strategic relevance of DEI to innovation, talent access, and long-term value creation. Investors didn’t just vote down the resolutions—they sent a message that leadership on inclusion is now a fundamental expectation, not an optional position.

BRIDGE POV

The 2025 proxy season is not a peak of backlash, but a clarifying moment. These shareholder votes made clear that anti-DEI proposals were being pushed from the outside in, as an ideological attack, disconnected from financial performance, risk oversight, or shareholder priorities. Investors showed discipline. They distinguished between politicized noise and what materially drives competitive advantage and loudly affirmed that politics is not a business strategy. 

 

For companies, this creates a new level of mandate. DEI is no longer a discretionary conversation. It’s a governance issue, a credibility issue, a reputational issue and, increasingly, a leadership signal.

 

The political environment remains volatile. But investor expectations are not. Boards should take this moment to double down on clarity and consistency: not just protecting DEI infrastructure, but actively operationalizing it as part of how the company wins.

 

WHAT COMES NEXT: PREPARING FOR PROXY SEASON 2026

Now is the time for companies to quietly prepare for 2026. The political environment remains unpredictable, but investor expectations are not. The path forward demands focus, discipline, and consistency. Three actions matter most.

 

1. Sharpen the DEI–Performance Link: Investors aren’t looking for ideals—they’re looking for results. Boards should ensure that DEI commitments are clearly communicated, supported by metrics, and directly tied to risk and growth. This means updating public reporting, auditing KPIs, and showing how inclusion strategies support business outcomes.
2. Engage Shareholders Year-Round: Waiting until the proxy hits the ballot is too late. Governance teams should begin proactive briefings with institutional investors and proxy advisors now. The goal is to build trust, clarify intent, and make DEI strategy legible as part of long-term value creation—not a flashpoint.
3. Prepare for Pressure—and Respond with Strength: The backlash may evolve, but it’s not going away. Executive teams should be ready. That includes scenario planning, coordinated board messaging, internal communications strategy, and clarity on where the company stands. This is not just about defense. It’s about showing that inclusive, equitable systems are how the company leads.
    

As a framework, organizations should stay anchored in three core DEI components: risk mitigation, inclusive culture building, and measurable business outcomes. That’s where credibility lives—and where the future of leadership is being defined.

 

While these dynamics have played out most visibly in public company boardrooms, the implications are just as relevant for the private sector. Investors may not be casting formal votes, but the expectations around performance, values alignment, and leadership integrity apply across the market. The companies that meet the moment—public or private—will be the ones building long-term advantage.

FTC ENTERS INTO CONSENT DECREE LIMITING POLITICAL BOYCOTTS OF MEDIA PLATFORMS

• FTC Consent Decree in the Matter of Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group 
   

OVERVIEW

As part of its approval of the Omnicom–Interpublic merger, the Federal Trade Commission has entered into a consent decree that prohibits both companies from coordinating or initiating boycotts of media platforms based on political or ideological viewpoints—including viewpoints expressed in the content those platforms carry.

 

The decree stems from allegations that Omnicom and Interpublic may have previously engaged in practices that crossed the line under the Federal Trade Commission Act, particularly in contexts where conservative platforms were excluded from ad buys. The FTC’s position is now explicit: advertising strategy cannot be used to suppress or penalize political speech, even when that suppression is indirect or reputational in nature.

 

There is one major caveat. The decree allows the companies to honor explicit client requests to avoid particular platforms—but only if the request originates solely from the client, with no suggestion, influence, or filtering by the agency. The burden of separation now lies with the agency to demonstrate that decisions are client-led and viewpoint-neutral.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The recent FTC settlement with Omnicom and Interpublic isn’t happening in a vacuum. It reflects a broader—and increasingly familiar—pattern: federal regulators securing politically aligned concessions from corporations as a condition of doing business.

This kind of pressure has surfaced across multiple agencies. The FCC, for example, reportedly pushed Verizon to drop its DEI initiatives in exchange for greenlighting its merger with Frontier. Similar terms are now in play for the pending merger between Charter and Cox, and past investigations into Comcast and NBCUniversal have followed the same playbook.

 

At the heart of this trend are serious constitutional questions. These agreements, while technically “voluntary,” often require companies to limit or forfeit free speech and free association—rights protected under the First Amendment. So far, targeted companies have largely accepted the terms in order to move forward. But if one refuses, it could trigger a defining legal test.

 

Parallel challenges are already underway. Lawsuits brought by Harvard and several law firms have resulted in rulings suggesting that Trump Administration efforts to penalize DEI programs likely crossed constitutional lines.

 

What’s emerging is more than a conflict over political speech—it’s a broader contest over institutional autonomy. The ability of companies to define their own values, strategies, and standards of engagement is increasingly being shaped not by markets or stakeholders, but by the ideological aims of regulators. That tension is growing—and it’s likely to escalate.

 

BRIDGE POV

This consent decree marks a shift in how regulatory power is being used in an attempt to shape corporate behavior aligned along ideological lines. The FTC’s position misrepresents brand safety as potential viewpoint discrimination and attempts to restrict these two agencies from making media decisions tied to political or ideological content. It’s a deliberate attempt to chill values-based positioning at the institutional level.

 

But here’s the caveat: the power still lies with the brands. Clients retain the authority and discretion to direct where their dollars go—so long as the decision is theirs alone. That means companies still control how they manage reputational risk, uphold brand values, and align with the communities they serve. 

 

While the signal might be broader, it’s Important to note that this specifically applies to Omnicom and IPG.

 

This is a moment for courageous leadership. An opportunity to clarify internal governance, document the basis for platform decisions, and reassert the role of corporate voice—not as political expression, but as strategic alignment with mission, audience, and trust. What companies should not do is abdicate that responsibility—or allow regulators to reshape it through indirect coercion.

 

At a certain point, that coercion may not just be ideological. It may be actionable. If government actors use regulatory leverage to punish viewpoint-based business decisions, we may be approaching the threshold of tortious interference. That legal test is coming. But the leadership test is already here.

 

1. ​​Codify Governance Protocols: Clarify who makes decisions about media platforms, under what criteria, and how those decisions are documented. Agencies can no longer act on perceived client preferences—those preferences must be explicit. Brands should ensure their governance structure supports autonomy, withstands scrutiny, and reflects mission-aligned judgment.
2. Reaffirm Brand Standards—Internally and Externally: This is the moment to make clear what the brand stands for and what it won’t compromise. That includes articulating how reputational risk is evaluated, which platform behaviors are inconsistent with brand values, and how those determinations are tied to long-term trust, not short-term politics.
3. Redefine the Agency Relationship:  Brands should revisit how they brief, direct, and document decisions with media agencies.  This isn't just about compliance—it’s about making sure the agency is a transparent executor of brand priorities, not a gatekeeper or risk buffer. Companies must take full ownership of media strategy and ensure that agencies operate with clarity around brand-led, not agency-led, decisions.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TENNESSEE LAW RESTRICTING ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE FOR TRANSGENDER MINORS

• United States v. Skrmetti 
• Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Discriminatory Ban on Transgender Health Care for Youth in Skrmetti Ruling 

 

OVERVIEW

In a high-stakes ruling with national implications for youth healthcare and LGBTQ+ rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits transgender minors from accessing certain forms of gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

 

The law, enacted in 2023, restricts these treatments for individuals under 18 when used specifically to treat gender dysphoria. It was immediately challenged by transgender youth, their families, and medical providers, who argued the law violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating on the basis of sex and gender identity.

 

A lower federal court initially blocked the law from taking effect, but the Sixth Circuit reversed that injunction. The Supreme Court has now affirmed the reversal, holding that the law does not constitute sex-based discrimination. In the majority’s view, the statute classifies care based on age and medical use—not identity—because the same treatments remain legal for adults and for minors being treated for other conditions.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This case has drawn close scrutiny for two major reasons—its relationship to broader federal policy, and its implications for how courts will treat laws targeting transgender individuals going forward.

 

First, the ruling effectively legitimizes a broader policy posture already underway. One of Trump’s early Executive Orders in 2025 pledged to “Defend Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restore Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” That order, and subsequent federal agency actions taken under it, have directly targeted transgender individuals—particularly in healthcare and education. Some of those actions have been blocked in court, such as the denial of federal funding for transgender healthcare. Others, like the dismissal of transgender servicemembers from the military, have been allowed to proceed. 

 

Until now, most decisions have been preliminary. But this Supreme Court ruling in Skrmetti is a final decision on the merits, affirming that government action restricting gender-affirming care for minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. That outcome signals that similar federal or state actions—especially those concerning access to healthcare—are unlikely to be declared unlawful by this Court.

 

Second, the decision stands in tension with the Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment extends to LGBTQ+ individuals. While Bostock applied specifically to Title VII, it left open whether similar protections apply under other federal laws—such as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education—and under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. To date, the Court has declined to hold that LGBTQ+ individuals are entitled to heightened constitutional protection on par with race or sex classifications. Skrmetti reinforces that reluctance. Without that heightened scrutiny, it becomes far more difficult to prove that laws targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, including those affecting education or healthcare access, are unconstitutional.

 

BRIDGE POV

While this ruling marks a legal shift with far-reaching implications, it does not change what leadership requires. The Court may have upheld the state’s authority to restrict access to care for transgender minors, but it did not erase the responsibility of employers to safeguard dignity, equity, and wellbeing in the workplace and beyond.

 

In practical terms, this decision empowers states to enact—and defend—laws that limit or stigmatize care for transgender youth. But, in reputational terms, it puts greater weight on how private-sector institutions choose to respond. Silence can signal complicity. So can indifference. And for organizations that serve or employ LGBTQ+ individuals and their families, neutrality is not insulation—it’s exposure.

 

Companies cannot rely on legal minimums to define leadership. Healthcare benefits, inclusive policy design, and culture-building are all areas where the private sector continues to lead. But this moment calls for more than continuation. It calls for a reassertion of values: that inclusion is not conditional, that support for transgender employees and their families is not negotiable, and that care—especially for youth—is not political.

 

1. Reevaluate Healthcare Coverage in All Jurisdictions: Ensure that benefits—including gender-affirming care for dependents—remain consistent, compliant, and protected across state lines. This may include expanding access through national providers, reimbursing for out-of-state care, or offering support through third-party advocacy programs. Policy should reflect values, not just regulations.
2. Communicate Support Proactively, Not Reactively: Internal communications matter. Employers should clearly reaffirm their commitment to LGBTQ+ employees and families, including how benefits, protections, and support will remain in place regardless of changing state laws. Waiting until employees ask—or face harm—is too late.
3. Strengthen Policy Infrastructure: Review and reinforce nondiscrimination, medical leave, and travel-support policies. Align these with federal standards, but also go beyond them to build consistency across business units and geographies. The goal is to ensure that state-level restrictions do not fracture internal protections or create risk exposure for employees or the company.

FEDERAL COURT ENJOINS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BAN ON US PASSPORT TRANSGENDER IDENTITY MARKERS

• Orr, et al v. United States

 

OVERVIEW

Under the Trump Administration’s Executive Order on “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the U.S. State Department implemented a new passport policy prohibiting individuals from selecting a sex marker that differs from their sex assigned at birth. This policy explicitly bans transgender individuals from using gender identity–based markers on their passports, including the “X” designation previously available for nonbinary and intersex individuals.

 

A coalition of transgender, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the new policy. On April 18, 2025, the federal District Court in Boston issued a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the policy against the six named plaintiffs. On June 17, the court expanded its ruling, certifying a nationwide class and extending the injunction to prevent enforcement of the policy against any individual in the class.

 

The ruling halts implementation of the policy nationwide—at least for now—preserving the ability of transgender and gender-diverse individuals to obtain federal identification that reflects their lived and legal identity.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The court’s certification of a nationwide class and the extension of the preliminary injunction means that, for now, all transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex individuals must be permitted to continue using gender markers on U.S. passports that reflect their gender identity—including the “X” designation. This protection remains in place pending a final decision on the merits of the case.

 

However, the durability of that protection is not assured. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Skrmetti—upholding a state ban on gender-affirming care for minors as referenced above—and its earlier ruling in U.S. v. Shilling, which allowed the military to proceed with the dismissal of transgender servicemembers, there is reason to believe the Court would take a more deferential view of the passport policy if the case reaches it.

 

If the administration appeals, there is a possibility that the Supreme Court would stay the injunction and allow the new policy to take effect while the case proceeds. And given the Court’s current posture toward transgender-related equal protection claims, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits. The ruling in Skrmetti suggests that as long as the government can frame a policy as facially neutral and tethered to administrative or security objectives, constitutional challenges are likely to face an uphill battle.

 

BRIDGE POV

This case isn’t just about passport policy—it’s about the legitimacy of identity in public life. The attempted ban on gender-affirming passport markers reflects a broader federal push to erase recognition of transgender and nonbinary individuals in legal and administrative systems. That move carries both symbolic and practical consequences—and it places the burden of dignity, safety, and validation squarely on the institutions individuals interact with every day.

 

For the private sector, this ruling presents a moment of clarity. The legal right to self-identification may still be contested, but the human and business case for affirming identity is not. Companies that operate across borders, manage global mobility, or issue internal credentials must decide what they recognize: the limitations of a state-driven definition—or the lived realities of their people.

 

Leadership in this context means resisting reduction. It means ensuring that policies, systems, and employee experiences reflect not just legal compliance, but core commitments to inclusion, privacy, and trust. The courts may decide what a passport can say. But companies decide what their systems recognize—and what kind of belonging they enable.

 

1. Align Internal Systems with Self-Identified Gender: Review how gender is collected, stored, and displayed across HR platforms, ID badges, travel tools, and insurance systems. Wherever legally permissible, systems should reflect employees’ self-identified gender—not assigned sex at birth. This includes honoring nonbinary designations and allowing updates without undue administrative burden.
2. Protect International Travelers from Identity Conflict: For global companies, mismatches between legal documents and internal identity records can pose real risk during international travel. Establish protocols to support transgender and nonbinary employees crossing borders—including pre-travel legal guidance, backup documentation, and emergency support procedures. Don’t wait for a crisis to build a response.
3. Reinforce Inclusion Through Policy and Communication: Now is the time to publicly reaffirm your organization’s commitment to transgender and nonbinary inclusion, especially in the face of federal rollback efforts. That includes updating nondiscrimination language, providing access to gender-affirming benefits, and ensuring that employee communications address the current legal climate with clarity and care.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS (SFFA) FILE MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION AGAINST US NAVAL ACADEMY

• Students for Fair Admissions v U.S. Naval Academy, Joint Motion to Dismiss & Vacate

 

OVERVIEW

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard University that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy was unlawful. However, the Court explicitly exempted military academies from its ruling, citing the government’s interest in maintaining a diverse officer corps.

 

Despite that carve-out, SFFA filed suit in October 2023 against the U.S. Naval Academy, challenging its use of race in admissions. In December 2024, a federal district court in Maryland ruled in favor of the Academy, holding that the federal government has a compelling interest in cultivating diversity within the military and that deference is owed to military judgment on matters of national security.

 

Following a change in Administration, the Department of Justice opted to settle the matter. DOJ agreed to end the use of race in admissions at the Naval Academy and, together with SFFA, filed a joint motion to dismiss the case and vacate the district court’s ruling.

 

A similar lawsuit against West Point, also brought by SFFA in September 2023, remains pending in the Southern District of New York. When SFFA sought an emergency injunction from the Supreme Court to suspend West Point’s diversity admissions policy while litigation proceeds, the Court denied the request. While the Court emphasized that the denial should not be interpreted as a signal on the merits, many legal observers viewed it as a tacit recognition of a potential military exception to the Harvard precedent.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The District Court’s ruling in favor of the U.S. Naval Academy effectively granted a narrow exception to the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard, allowing the Academy to continue using race as a factor in admissions based on the government’s interest in building a diverse officer corps.

 

But that exception may not stand. If the joint motion by the Department of Justice and SFFA to vacate the ruling is granted, the District Court’s decision will be formally withdrawn and carry no legal force or precedent.

 

Given the DOJ's willingness to settle the Naval Academy case by ending race-conscious admissions practices voluntarily, it is increasingly likely the same approach will be applied in the parallel case involving West Point. A settlement there would remove the question from judicial review—at least for now.

 

If both cases are resolved without a final ruling, the Supreme Court will not be forced to address whether military academies warrant an exception to the general prohibition against race-based admissions in higher education. That leaves the question unresolved—and the precedent from SFFA v. Harvard effectively extended by default into military contexts.

 

BRIDGE POV

The DOJ’s decision to settle this case wasn’t about legal defeat—it was about legal avoidance. By agreeing to withdraw the policy and dismiss the case, the administration has mooted the central question: whether military academies are constitutionally permitted to consider race in admissions. In doing so, it avoided giving the courts an opportunity to litigate the issue and potentially affirm a narrow, security-based exception to the broader Harvard ruling.

 

But that choice comes with tradeoffs. By vacating the lower court’s ruling, the administration erased a potentially influential precedent. The Fourth Circuit’s decision in favor of the Naval Academy—recognizing a compelling governmental interest in officer corps diversity—will carry no legal weight going forward. The issue now remains unresolved.

 

For the private sector, this is less a warning than a cue: don't wait for the courts to define your space. The business case for building representative leadership remains strong—and so does the public expectation to act on it. 

 

1. Advance Diversity Through Resilient, Mission-Aligned Criteria: Re-examine leadership development, early-career talent programs, and selection processes to ensure they remain equity-driven while legally durable. Focus on multi-dimensional criteria—experience, geography, first-generation status, community engagement—that address opportunity gaps without relying on race alone.
2. Preserve Progress with Clear, Values-Driven Communication: Clarify your organization’s commitment to diversity and representation as a strategic priority, not a legal risk. Avoid walking back inclusive policies due to public pressure or political shifts. The absence of legal precedent is not a reason for silence—it’s an opportunity to lead on your own terms.
3. Stay Ready for a Changing Legal Landscape: Just because this case was dismissed doesn’t mean the question is settled. Legal uncertainty is now part of the terrain. Equip your HR, legal, and DEI teams with frameworks for designing race-aware programs that withstand evolving regulation and public scrutiny—especially in sectors where workforce composition is tied to performance, innovation, or trust.

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, July 31st from 12-1p ET.