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.

DOJ AND DOE SUE CALIFORNIA OVER TITLE IX COMPLIANCE

• Complaint - United States v California Interscholastic Federation and California Dept Education 
• Education Department dismisses thousands of civil rights complaints at an ‘unheard of’ pace
   

OVERVIEW

Following a recent settlement with the University of Pennsylvania, the Department of Justice and Department of Education have filed a Title IX lawsuit against the State of California. The suit targets the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversee interscholastic athletics across public, charter, and private secondary schools statewide.

 

The complaint alleges that CDE and CIF policies—which define gender to include “gender identity and gender expression”—require schools to “allow some boys to compete in girls’ sports” and “force girls to share spaces such as locker rooms with boys.” It further claims that the agencies failed to accommodate requests from female athletes and families seeking female-only teams, and that they declined to voluntarily resolve the matter following earlier findings of noncompliance with Title IX.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This enforcement action furthers Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, as well as the Executive Order Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.

 

Given recent Supreme Court decisions—such as allowing the administration to proceed with its executive order removing transgender servicemembers from the military, and upholding Tennessee’s law denying transgender minors access to gender-affirming care—the Court has signaled a willingness to uphold restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights.

 

The Supreme Court is expected to hear a case next term directly addressing the participation of transgender athletes in interscholastic sports. Unless and until the Court rules against such enforcement actions, the administration is likely to continue advancing similar Title IX suits at both the state and institutional levels.

BRIDGE POV

The California Title IX suit reflects a broader shift in how federal agencies are interpreting sex-based protections under existing law. While this case focuses on interscholastic athletics, it signals a growing willingness by the federal government to challenge policies grounded in gender identity, particularly where they intersect with sex-segregated spaces or programs.

 

This underscores the need to stay current not just with internal DEI commitments, but with how federal enforcement may affect employee benefits, facilities access, sports participation, and vendor or partner relationships. This isn’t just a policy conversation—it’s a compliance horizon.

 

1. Inventory Gender-Related Policies Across Functions: Review how your organization defines and applies gender in areas such as employee benefits, restrooms, team sports, and data systems. Ensure policies are consistent and reflect both your values and current legal guidance.
2. Clarify Governance Over Rapidly Shifting Issues: Designate clear internal owners—Legal, HR, DEI—for monitoring litigation, executive orders, and state-level developments related to gender identity and sex-based rights. Ensure escalation and scenario-planning mechanisms are in place.
3. Strengthen External Alignment Protocols: For organizations working with schools, government agencies, or nonprofits, assess how their policies around gender identity may affect your own compliance posture. Consider adding a review step to partnership evaluations where Title IX or similar issues may surface.

FCC PRESSURES COMPANIES TO DROP DEI IN EXCHANGE FOR MERGER APPROVAL

• T-Mobile disconnects from DEI under pressure from Trump administration
• AT&T CEO on potential Trump DEI pressure for $5.75B deal: 'We don't have to roll back anything' 

 

OVERVIEW

According to recent reports, the FCC has continued using its regulatory authority to pressure companies into abandoning their DEI programs as a condition for approving merger and acquisition deals. As previously covered in Issues 7, 13, and 14, this marks a sustained enforcement pattern.

 

Following Verizon’s earlier compliance, T-Mobile has now agreed to halt its DEI initiatives in order to secure regulatory approval for its acquisitions of US Cellular’s wireless operations and Metronet. In contrast, AT&T’s CEO has publicly rejected the FCC’s position, stating that the company will not abandon its DEI commitments as a condition of approval for its acquisition of Lumen Technologies’ fiber business.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The FCC—like other federal agencies without direct civil rights enforcement authority (e.g., the National Institutes of Health, as noted in Issues 10 and 17)—continues to use its regulatory leverage to advance the administration’s broader objective of dismantling DEI initiatives across both public and private sectors.

 

So far, these agency-level efforts have not been challenged in court. If they are, the FCC’s conditioning of merger approvals on the abandonment of DEI policies could raise First Amendment concerns—similar to those raised in prior lawsuits brought by law firms such as Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. In those cases, courts issued favorable rulings blocking the administration from imposing similar conditions without evidence that the targeted DEI programs violated federal civil rights laws.

 

Despite current federal pressure, Title VII still permits workplace diversity initiatives—provided they do not involve race, ethnicity, or gender as deciding factors in employment terms or conditions. Companies should continue to work closely in collaboration with their DEI leaders and legal counsel to ensure that their DEI efforts remain consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws.

 

BRIDGE POV

The FCC’s approach reflects a broader enforcement pattern: federal agencies without formal civil rights authority are leveraging regulatory discretion to influence corporate behavior around DEI. While these actions have not yet been tested in court, the conditions being imposed may raise constitutional questions—particularly where they pressure companies to abandon DEI without any showing of legal noncompliance.

 

This moment demands more than compliance—it demands courage.  Capitulating to informal pressure sets a precedent that agency leverage can override institutional autonomy. Upholding DEI commitments—where lawful and aligned with business goals—is not only a matter of legal defensibility, but of protecting the principle that strategic direction should be led by leadership, not extracted through regulatory coercion.

 

1. Protect Autonomy as a Strategic Asset: Regulatory pressure may come quietly, but how companies respond becomes public—and lasting. Upholding your ability to lead on values, not conditions, reinforces long-term trust with employees, investors, and stakeholders. The more clearly you defend that autonomy now, the more durable your leadership will be later.
2. Own the Narrative—Don’t Cede It: If DEI is part of your strategic identity, say so. Codify that commitment in board-level resolutions, ESG reporting, or leadership communications. Clear articulation helps anchor internal alignment and sends a strong signal that your values are not situational or negotiable.
3. Convene the Right People Before You Respond: Don’t treat regulatory inquiries in isolation. Build a rapid-response protocol that includes Legal, DEI, Comms, and senior leadership. Weigh the legal, reputational, and cultural implications—not just the transactional outcome. Lead deliberately, and communicate on your terms.

STATE AGS SPLIT ON DEI AS SHAREHOLDER VOTES SPARK PROXY FIRM INVESTIGATION

• Attorney General Bailey Leads Fight Against Hidden ESG And DEI Agendas In Corporate America | Attorney General Office of Missouri 
• State of Missouri v. Institutional Shareholder Services 
• State of Missouri v. Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC
   

OVERVIEW

The Missouri State Attorney General has filed lawsuits against Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)—two foreign-owned firms that together advise on over 97% of shareholder proxy votes in the U.S. The suits seek to compel both firms to cooperate in a state investigation into their role advising shareholders to vote against anti-DEI proposals at recent corporate annual meetings. The AG alleges potential fraud or misrepresentation related to how the firms evaluate and communicate the risks and benefits of corporate DEI initiatives.

 

This action follows a series of state-level lawsuits brought by Missouri, including against Starbucks (covered in Issues 3 and 9), pursuing DEI-related claims under state law rather than federal statutes.

 

Meanwhile, Democratic State Attorneys General have launched a DEI Working Group to support employers maintaining DEI programs. The group recently issued public guidance on how to develop legally compliant DEIA strategies within state and federal law.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Missouri Attorney General’s lawsuit represents an attempt to use state law to scrutinize how proxy advisory firms handle shareholder proposals related to DEI. The legal theory behind the suit—that firms may be engaging in fraud or misrepresentation by recommending votes against anti-DEI resolutions—has not been tested in court, and the broader implications for proxy firms or investors remain unclear.

 

As of now, neither ISS nor Glass Lewis has issued a public response to the allegations.

 

In contrast, the Democratic AGs’ DEI Working Group has taken a proactive approach—affirming that DEIA initiatives remain legally permissible and offering public guidance on how employers can structure programs to align with state and federal law.

 

Together, these developments highlight growing state-level divergence in how DEI is being approached by regulators. 

 

BRIDGE POV

This demands clarity of leadership. The Missouri AG’s investigation and the Democratic AGs’ DEI Working Group reflect diverging approaches to how institutions define, defend, and deliver on inclusion.

 

The takeaway is clear: DEI is no longer a siloed HR initiative. It belongs at the core of corporate and growth strategy—embedded in how you lead, how you hire, how you build trust, and how you expand. The strongest position is one where inclusion is operationalized across the organization, clearly aligned to business outcomes, and owned at every level of leadership. That’s not just a response to scrutiny—it’s a competitive advantage.

 

1. Engage Proactively with Proxy Advisors and Investors: Ensure DEI is part of your long-term value story, clearly reflected in proxy materials, investor briefings, and leadership messaging. Clarity of intent matters—especially when external narratives attempt to redefine your position for you.
2. Coordinate Across Legal, Governance, and DEI Teams: Treat shareholder-facing DEI communications as strategic outputs—not operational afterthoughts. Align Legal, Governance, and DEI leadership around language, data, and intent to ensure consistency, accuracy, and resilience under scrutiny.
3. Strengthen Your DEI Posture from the Inside Out: Your most credible defense is performance. Operationalize inclusion across business functions with systems, incentives, and accountability that tie directly to outcomes. This isn’t just about surviving scrutiny—it’s about scaling growth with integrity.

DOJ ISSUES GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING OFFICIAL

ENGLISH ORDER

• AG Bondi Memo: Implementation of Executive Order No. 14224 Designating English as the Official Language of the United States
   

OVERVIEW

In March, Trump issued Executive Order #14224, designating English as the official language of the United States and directing the Attorney General to develop implementation guidance.

 

The Department of Justice has now released a memorandum outlining its approach. The memo rescinds Executive Order #13166, issued by President Clinton in 2000, which required all federal agencies and federally funded programs to provide meaningful access to services for individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). EO #13166 had formed the basis for decades of multilingual service requirements across healthcare, education, housing, and more.

 

Under the new guidance, the federal government will “redirect resources toward English-language education and assimilation,” and, where permitted by law, evaluate which programs, grants, and policies “might serve the public at large better if operated exclusively in English.” 

 

A full review of existing policies is now underway, with further implementation guidance expected within 180 days.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

There is no federal statute that explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of language, accent, or limited English proficiency (LEP). While some lower courts have held that such discrimination can amount to national origin discrimination—which is prohibited under federal law—others have reached the opposite conclusion, creating a patchwork of precedent.

 

The Supreme Court has recognized that denying individuals access to certain government services based on LEP may violate constitutional protections, particularly under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The leading case on this issue involved immigrant children with limited English proficiency, where the Court held that English-only instruction denied them equal educational opportunity. That ruling helped establish the now-widespread practice of English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction in public schools.

 

Any changes to federal policy limiting services for LEP individuals—especially in education, healthcare, or other essential services—are likely to face legal challenge. Given the lack of statutory clarity and conflicting precedent in the courts, however, the outcome of such challenges remains uncertain.

 

BRIDGE POV

Regardless of how the federal government repositions its obligations around language access, companies are not bound by the same political calculus. Most operate in multilingual environments—both across the U.S. and in international markets—where clear, inclusive communication directly impacts employee engagement and customer connection.

 

This is more than a compliance moment—it’s a leadership opportunity. Language is a lever for trust, loyalty, and growth. Companies that invest in cultural fluency and inclusive communication position themselves to serve more effectively, compete more broadly, and lead with credibility across the globe.

 

1. Make Language Access a Workforce Enabler: Audit where language may be creating barriers to safety, productivity, or engagement—from onboarding to benefits to frontline management. Providing key resources in the languages your employees use isn’t just inclusive—it improves operations and retention.
2. Embed Cultural Fluency into Customer Experience: Treat language not as a translation issue, but as a signal of respect and relevance. Train frontline teams, localize high-impact messaging, and build systems that recognize the cultural contexts in which your customers live and buy. That’s where authentic loyalty grows.
3. Build Organizational Muscle for Multilingual Communication: Don’t leave language adaptation to individual managers or last-minute fixes. Invest in the systems, roles, and partnerships that allow your organization to communicate consistently across languages—especially in high-stakes moments like crisis response, brand campaigns, or community engagement.

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.

 

This month’s BRIDGE Community Call honors Disability Pride Month themed “We Belong Here — and We’re Here to Stay.”  

 

And we are thrilled to announce Donna Bungard, Director of Accessibility at Indeed will be our guest speaker as together we will explore:

• how true inclusion goes beyond access to agency, leadership, and co-creation
• how ableism shows up in our systems
• how we can embed accessibility across our organizations in lasting, meaningful ways

 

When: Thursday, July 31st from 12-1p ET