TRUMP ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER ON THE USE OF DEI IN AI

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/preventing-woke-ai-in-the-federal-government/

 

OVERVIEW

Trump has issued a sweeping Executive Order entitled “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government,” signaling a sharp federal pivot in how artificial intelligence systems are evaluated, procured, and deployed across government agencies. While the EO states that the federal government is “hesitant to regulate the functionality of AI models in the private marketplace,” it nevertheless mandates that federal agencies adopt contracting guidelines that prohibit the use of AI or LLMs that contain “ideological biases or social agendas” that “distort the quality and accuracy of output.” The Order explicitly targets DEI, labeling it “the most destructive and pervasive of these ideologies” and asserting that it must be eliminated from all AI and LLMs used by the federal government — whether developed internally or accessed through contracts with vendors or other service providers. To that end, the EO establishes two principles for achieving what it calls “Unbiased AI.” First, that “LLMs shall prioritize historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity, and shall acknowledge uncertainty where reliable information is incomplete or contradictory.” Second, that “LLMs shall be neutral, nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.”

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Executive Order “Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government” represents a material shift in how the federal government defines and enforces standards around AI and LLM usage. While it hesitates to include private-sector AI, the EO imposes strict limitations on what kinds of AI systems can be used, procured, or accessed by federal agencies. At its core is a sweeping redefinition of DEI in the AI context, which the EO describes as “the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism; and discrimination on the basis of race or sex. DEI displaces the commitment to truth in favor of preferred outcomes.” Several of the terms used in this definition — including “unconscious bias,” “systemic racism,” and “critical race theory” — are legally and academically contested, raising constitutional concerns about vagueness and the enforceability of the EO as applied to contractors.

 

This framing is consistent with prior executive actions from the same administration, including the EO Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which imposed certification requirements that have already faced legal challenges on similar vagueness grounds. Here, too, contractors may face uncertainty about what constitutes disqualifying content, particularly in AI models that aim to address bias, ensure representational fairness, or comply with civil rights standards. The EO places federal procurement power at the center of enforcement. By conditioning access to federal contracts on the exclusion of what it calls “ideological dogmas such as DEI,” the EO effectively sets a new compliance standard — one that may conflict with existing obligations under Title VI, Title VII, and agency-specific nondiscrimination rules. Contractors developing or deploying AI/LLMs that involve ethical frameworks, demographic modeling, or fairness constraints should consult legal counsel immediately to evaluate risk exposure and determine whether parallel development or segmentation strategies will be necessary to preserve eligibility for federal work.

 

BRIDGE POV

This Executive Order is a direct threat to the integrity, safety, and credibility of AI development in the United States. Let’s be clear: banning DEI from AI is not about neutrality — it’s about codifying inequality into the next generation of technology. It reflects a willful misunderstanding of what systemic bias is, how it operates in data and algorithms, and how we as leaders must correct for it if we are to build AI that serves everyone.

 

This EO uses federal procurement power to push the private sector toward a false binary: build AI that reflects existing inequalities — or lose access to government contracts. But while the government may choose to abandon equity, the private sector must not. Every boardroom, every founder, every CEO now faces a test: will your company help encode exclusion into foundational models, or will you commit — audibly and actionably — to ethical, inclusive AI?

 

What’s at stake is not just social progress. It’s product quality, brand trust, and long-term viability. If your AI fails to understand, serve, or respect the lived realities of diverse populations, it will fail in the marketplace. The most forward-thinking companies already understand this — which is why many are implementing safeguards such as ensuring that training datasets reflect demographic and cultural diversity, embedding DEI-informed checkpoints throughout the development process, requiring explainability for model outputs that affect identity or representation, and establishing cross-functional governance models that bring legal, product, marketing, and ethics voices into AI decision-making from the start.

 

These are not “ideological dogmas.” They are innovation safeguards and foundational practices for building systems that are effective, ethical, and future-proof in a complex, global society.

 

We call on the private sector — especially those leading in marketing, media, and technology — to hold the line. Adopt and publish responsible AI principles. Conduct DEI-informed AI audits. Train your teams to recognize systemic bias in data and model design. And speak clearly about what you stand for. In this moment, silence is complicity — and neutrality is not a business strategy.

 

(In most issues of Project Forward, we identify three core strategies for organizational response. This time, that’s not enough. The scope and stakes of this executive order demand more — more vigilance, more clarity, more leadership. So in this issue, we’ve expanded to ten critical actions every company should take now to ensure AI development remains ethical, inclusive, and aligned with long-term business viability.)

 

1. Publish Responsible AI Principles Now: This is not the moment for quiet values. Draft and release a public set of responsible AI principles that explicitly commit to fairness, equity, and inclusion. Doing so sends a clear signal to your teams, your partners, and your consumers that ethical AI is a non-negotiable priority — not a passing concern. These principles become the foundation for every decision that follows.
2. Audit Your AI Stack for DEI Risk — and Strength: Conduct a full-spectrum audit of your AI systems — internal, third-party, and off-the-shelf — to map where DEI-informed decisions are already built in, and where they may be vulnerable. Understand how bias mitigation was handled, whether inclusive representation is present in training data, and how model outputs could be affected by this EO. Be prepared to protect — not erase — the progress you’ve made.
3. Establish Cross-Functional AI Governance: AI is not just a technical issue. It’s a brand, legal, product, and societal one. Create or empower a governance structure that includes leaders from legal, marketing, product, DEI, and ethics. This group should review new models, guide procurement, and serve as a standing checkpoint for decisions with reputational or societal impact. Make AI governance an enterprise function, not a technical afterthought.
4. Train for Systemic Bias and AI Literacy: If your teams don’t understand how historical bias enters data, models, and outputs — they will reproduce it. Invest in organization-wide training that goes beyond AI functionality and into its social consequences. Product, marketing, and content teams must understand the dynamics of exclusion baked into legacy systems so they can actively design against them.
5. Segment for Compliance Without Compromise: If your business depends on federal contracts, you may need to segment AI systems to meet these new EO standards — but do not let that dictate your overall roadmap. Build distinct systems if needed, but make clear internally that your brand, your commercial models, and your audience-facing experiences will continue to reflect inclusive design principles. Compliance should never override conscience.
6. Align With Like-Minded Partners:Don’t go it alone. Coordinate with companies, coalitions, platforms, and advocacy groups who are equally committed to responsible AI. Signal that inclusion is a shared business priority, not a liability. Joint statements, procurement standards, or open AI principles can build momentum — and help offset pressure from government clients or investors who may push for compliance with exclusionary policies.
7. Interrogate Your Data Supply Chains: Bias often enters AI systems long before the model is trained — through scraped datasets, unchecked vendor inputs, or legacy benchmarks. Map where your data comes from, who controls it, and what assumptions are embedded within it. Require transparency from third-party providers, and revise sourcing strategies where systemic bias or demographic exclusion are evident.
8. Center Affected Communities in Testing: Move beyond demographic checkboxes in QA. Engage diverse users — particularly those historically marginalized or misrepresented — in the testing and feedback process. Where AI impacts identity, representation, or visibility, community-informed review is not just ethical — it’s essential to catching failure modes before they scale.
9. Design Explainability Into High-Stakes Outputs: When AI determines what content is seen, who gets hired, or how people are categorized, outputs must be traceable and explainable to real humans. Require models — especially in high-impact areas — to show their work. Ensure that both internal reviewers and external users can understand why a decision was made, and challenge it if needed.
10. Go Public With Your Position: Your employees, consumers, and investors want to know where you stand. Make your commitment to inclusive, ethical AI clear through public principles, leadership statements, and transparency about how AI is used across your products. In a climate of politicized regulation, visibility is a strategy — and silence is a vacuum easily filled by assumption or backlash.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SETTLES WITH DOJ AND EEOC OVER ANTISEMITISM AND DEI PRACTICES 

https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/largest-eeoc-public-settlement-almost-20-years-columbia-university-agrees-pay-21-million#:~:text=As%20announced%20by%20the%20White,monitoring%20and%20other%20injunctive%20relief

 

OVERVIEW

Columbia University has reached separate settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission following dual investigations into alleged antisemitism and discriminatory DEI-related practices on campus. The investigations, initiated earlier this year, led the administration to suspend over $400 million in federal grants and contracts to the university. After determining that Columbia had failed to take adequate action in response to antisemitic incidents and had implemented DEI programs that allegedly violated anti-discrimination laws, the federal agencies pursued coordinated enforcement actions. Columbia has agreed to pay $200 million to resolve the DOJ investigation and an additional $21 million to settle the EEOC’s claims. 

 

Beyond financial penalties, the university has also committed to implementing structural reforms in its hiring, admissions, and educational policies, with future compliance to be monitored by federal authorities under the terms of the settlements. Federal officials have described the agreements as “historic,” signaling a new phase of aggressive oversight of DEI frameworks in higher education under this administration.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

This dual-agency enforcement action against Columbia University represents a significant escalation in how civil rights laws are being interpreted and applied under the administration — both in substance and in method. Columbia was alleged to have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in federally funded educational programs, as well as Title VII, which governs employment discrimination. While Title VI has long been interpreted to prohibit antisemitism when it stems from national origin, the government also alleged that Columbia’s DEI-related programs amounted to unlawful racial discrimination in both hiring and admissions. These allegations, if substantiated, would implicate both students and employees, drawing Title VI and Title VII into direct tension with standard DEI practices in higher education.

 

The settlements — $200 million with the Department of Justice and $21 million with the EEOC — are historic not only for their size but for the legal path taken. While monetary settlements are not uncommon under Title VII, particularly in employment cases, the $21 million figure is unprecedented in a religious discrimination case involving Jewish claimants. Even more notable is the DOJ-led resolution of the Title VI claims, which typically fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights — an office that lacks authority to impose financial penalties. By shifting enforcement to the DOJ, which does have authority to secure financial penalties, the administration bypassed traditional channels and asserted a broader, more aggressive use of civil rights enforcement.

 

Columbia settled without admitting liability, and the agreements allow for the reinstatement of over $400 million in suspended federal funding. But the implications stretch far beyond Columbia. News that Harvard is now reportedly negotiating a $500 million settlement with the federal government signals a broader strategy: using the threat of federal funding suspension and DOJ prosecution to force institutions into legally ambiguous settlements.

 

BRIDGE POV

These settlements raise profound questions about the future of institutional autonomy in higher education. Without new legislation or judicial rulings, the federal government is effectively redrawing the boundaries of lawful DEI practice through enforcement and financial pressure. By launching high-profile investigations and securing settlements without adjudication, it is establishing a pattern of compliance-by-default — one that leaves colleges and universities little room to defend or define their own commitments to inclusion.

 

For decades, DEI programs have been developed to address systemic disparities in access, opportunity, and representation — consistent with both civil rights law and the academic mission of higher education. This new posture reframes many of those efforts as liabilities, rather than as extensions of universities’ public responsibilities. It places leadership in an impossible bind: preserve your values and risk your funding, or adjust your practices in ways that may compromise your mission.

 

University leaders should not interpret these settlements as one-offs. They are precedent-setting, and their impact will not remain confined to a handful of elite institutions. If left unchallenged, this approach could influence donor policies, philanthropic partnerships, and even the ability to collaborate across institutions on shared research and social impact goals.

 

This is the time to reassert the importance of institutional autonomy and mission-driven inclusion. Responding to antisemitism — which must be done swiftly and effectively — should not come at the expense of racial equity or academic freedom. Universities must commit to lawful, evidence-based approaches to inclusion, and be prepared to explain how those approaches serve all members of their communities. Because what’s at stake is not just compliance — it’s the ability to govern according to core academic and civic values.

 

1. Reaffirm Institutional Autonomy and Mission: Publicly restate your institution’s core commitments to equity, inclusion, and academic freedom — not as ideological preferences, but as foundational to your mission. Be proactive in defining your values before they are redefined for you through external pressure.
2. Clarify and Separate Responses to Antisemitism and Racial Equity: Develop clearly defined and operationally distinct efforts to address antisemitism and racial equity. Avoid language or structures that conflate the two, and ensure compliance strategies do not compromise the integrity or legality of either focus.
3. Establish a Standing Oversight and Response Team: Create a cross-functional internal team — legal, DEI, compliance, academic affairs — to monitor enforcement trends, prepare documentation, and coordinate responses to inquiries or investigations. Treat this as an ongoing governance issue, not a one-time crisis.

THE US OLYMPIC & PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE BANS TRANSGENDER ATHLETES IN AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER KEEPING MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS 

• https://www.usopc.org/news/2025/july/25/usopc-statement-on-the-executive-order-saving-college-sport
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/us-olympics-trans-women-athletes-ban-trump.html

 

OVERVIEW

The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) has announced a ban on transgender women competing in women’s sports, citing its obligation as a “federally chartered organization” to “comply with federal expectations” under the administration’s Executive Order Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports. Although the EO formally applies only to interscholastic and collegiate athletics, the USOPC stated that, given the large number of Olympic and Paralympic athletes who come through the collegiate system, it was necessary to extend the federal policy to maintain eligibility standards and competitive consistency across all levels of the sport pipeline. This marks a departure from the USOPC’s prior policy of making “science-based decisions, sport by sport, and discipline by discipline” regarding transgender athlete eligibility. Under the new policy, transgender women will be restricted to men’s events, while transgender, non-binary, and intersex athletes may be offered participation in “open” or mixed-gender categories. The decision represents a significant shift in the governance of elite U.S. athletics and is likely to influence international federations and Olympic policy globally.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The ban imposed by the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) on transgender women competing in women’s sports arises in response to recent federal Executive Orders, but the legal landscape remains unsettled. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funds. However, unlike Title VII — which the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County includes protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in employment — the Court has not yet determined whether Title IX similarly protects transgender students in education, including athletic participation.

 

In the absence of clear judicial interpretation, the administration has issued executive orders and policy guidance asserting that Title IX prohibits the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sports and sex-segregated facilities. While these EOs reflect current federal policy under this administration, they do not have the force of law. Legal clarity is likely to come in the next Supreme Court term, as the Court is expected to hear Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ, cases that could definitively resolve whether Title IX protects transgender students' participation in gendered athletic programs.

 

For private employers and sports organizations, the governing statute is Title VII, which continues to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. That interpretation, grounded in Bostock, remains binding law. However, recent federal court rulings have enjoined enforcement of Biden-era EEOC guidance that would have extended those protections to include workplace accommodations. The EEOC, currently without a full quorum, has not issued new guidance under the administration, but Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has stated that while employers may not discriminate on the basis of gender identity in core employment decisions (e.g., hiring or firing), they are not required to make workplace accommodations related to restrooms, dress codes, pronouns, or other identity-based expressions. Employers should consult legal counsel to determine the current scope of their obligations under Title VII, particularly in jurisdictions that may offer broader protections under state law.

 

BRIDGE POV

The decision by the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee to ban transgender women from women’s competition represents a profound departure from its stated commitment to science-based, sport-specific inclusion. While the Committee cites “compliance with federal expectations” as justification, the executive order in question does not legally apply to Olympic or professional competition. 
 

This is not legal alignment — it is anticipatory capitulation, and it reflects a broader trend: institutions moving to curtail inclusion policies not because they are required to, but because they are afraid not to.

 

This decision does not occur in a vacuum. It will reverberate across professional leagues, collegiate athletics, youth sports, and the international Olympic movement. It also sends a chilling message to transgender, non-binary, and intersex athletes who have trained under previous standards of inclusion, only to be erased or relegated to segregated “open” categories whose viability remains unclear.

 

As legal uncertainty continues — and the Supreme Court prepares to take up the question of transgender protections under Title IX — organizations must resist the urge to fill the vacuum with exclusion. This is not the moment to abandon evidence-based frameworks or overwrite civil rights protections in the name of compliance theater. If elite institutions lead with fear instead of fairness, every athlete downstream will pay the price.

 

1. Maintain Science-Based, Sport-Specific Inclusion Standards: Do not preemptively abandon evidence-based eligibility frameworks. If adjustments must be made, they should be grounded in sport-specific data, not political posture. Consult with medical, legal, and ethical experts to preserve integrity and fairness for all athletes.
2. Communicate with Impacted Athletes Proactively and Transparently: Decisions of this magnitude must be accompanied by direct, respectful communication with those most affected. Avoid policy-by-press-release. Offer clarity, support, and — where possible — continued pathways to competition.
3. Prepare for Legal Divergence Across Jurisdictions: With litigation pending and federal policy unsettled, sports organizations, universities, and sponsors should prepare for a patchwork compliance environment. Work with counsel to assess risks, document policies, and monitor changes to Title IX and Title VII interpretations at the federal and state levels.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ISSUES GUIDANCE ON RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

• https://www.chcoc.gov/content/protecting-religious-expression-federal-workplace
• https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/Religious%20Accommodation%20Guidance%20Memo%207-16-25.pdf   

 

OVERVIEW

The administration has released new guidance aimed at expanding religious expression protections for federal employees. Issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the guidance directs all federal agencies to allow “personal religious expression… to the greatest extent possible unless such expression would impose an undue hardship on business operations.” 

It explicitly protects a range of conduct from disciplinary action, including the display of religious items, individual and group prayer during off-duty time, and religious expression — even when done in public or directed at the public — as long as it is not carried out in an official capacity. An accompanying guidance document outlines additional obligations for religious accommodations, instructing agencies to grant flexible work arrangements such as telework, adjusted schedules, and leave (paid or unpaid) for employees seeking to observe religious practices. The guidance signals an expanded interpretation of religious accommodation requirements across the federal workforce.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Though this guidance is specific to the federal workforce, it may serve as a signal for how the administration intends to interpret and enforce Title VII in both public and private settings. Title VII prohibits religious discrimination in employment and requires reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and practices, unless doing so would impose undue hardship. While the new OPM guidance does not change the law itself, it previews a more expansive view of what constitutes a required accommodation — including telework, flexible scheduling, or unpaid leave — and may influence future DOJ or EEOC enforcement priorities.

 

It is also worth noting that, while framed in broad terms, this guidance — and the administration’s broader religious liberty agenda — has primarily centered on protecting expressions of Christian (and at times Jewish) faith in the workplace. There is little evidence to suggest that this expanded posture has been applied equally or consistently to employees of other faith traditions. Employers should be aware of this uneven landscape, particularly in navigating workplace requests from employees of minority faiths, and should consult with legal counsel to ensure they are meeting both the letter and the spirit of Title VII's non-discrimination requirements.

 

BRIDGE POV

This guidance signals a widening gap between legal requirements and political interpretation of religious liberty in the workplace. While positioned as a neutral reaffirmation of employee rights, the policy reflects a growing trend: institutions being urged — or pressured — to make broad allowances for religious expression, particularly when those expressions align with dominant cultural or political norms. The effect is a tilt in workplace policy that favors some faith expressions over others, without clear protections or enforcement parity across traditions.

 

For federal employers, the guidance narrows the latitude to manage internal dynamics or protect public-facing neutrality when religious expression is involved. For private employers, it offers a preview of how Title VII enforcement may shift — not through new law, but through new expectations. Religious accommodation is a legal requirement, but when policy guidance is shaped more by ideology than operational realities, it risks eroding the trust of employees who may not see their own beliefs reflected or respected in the same way.

 

This is a moment to recommit to principled, even-handed governance. Employers must balance the legal duty to accommodate religious practices with the equally important responsibility to preserve a respectful, inclusive workplace for all employees — regardless of faith, belief, or none at all.

 

1. Audit and Document Your Accommodation Policy: Review your current approach to religious accommodations — including how requests are evaluated, approved, and communicated. Ensure there is a clear, consistent process that aligns with Title VII and avoids privileging one set of religious practices over others.
2. Train Managers on Rights and Boundaries: Equip supervisors with clear guidance on when religious expression is protected, when it must be accommodated, and where the limits lie — especially around proselytizing, public-facing roles, and intra-team dynamics. A well-meaning but untrained manager is often where risk begins.
3. Monitor for Cultural Disparities in Implementation: Track how religious accommodations and expressions are actually playing out across teams and locations. Look for patterns — including overaccommodation of dominant religious expressions and under-responsiveness to others — and address them proactively through policy updates or targeted training.

GLASS LEWIS CHALLENGES TEXAS LAW REQUIRING DISCLOSURES ON DEI AND ESG ADVICE

https://assets.law360news.com/2369000/2369131/https-ecf-txwd-uscourts-gov-doc1-181134662953.pdf

 

OVERVIEW

Proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis & Co., LLC has filed a lawsuit challenging a newly enacted Texas law that imposes mandatory disclaimers on corporate advice related to diversity, equity, inclusion, sustainability, or other ESG-related factors. 

Passed in June, the statute requires firms to issue a disclaimer whenever their advice “reflects the relevance of any of the following factors to companies’ financial performance: diversity, equity, inclusion, sustainability, environmental, social or governance factors,” stating that such advice “is not being provided solely in the financial interest of the company’s shareholders.” 

In its legal complaint, Glass Lewis argues that the law is “the first of its kind” and forces the company to “publicly condemn itself” when offering advice that aligns with DEI or ESG principles. The firm alleges the law constitutes “egregious viewpoint discrimination” and violates the First Amendment by compelling speech that aligns with the government’s ideological preferences. The lawsuit also challenges the statute as unconstitutionally vague, citing the lack of clear guidance on what language or conduct would trigger the required disclaimer. Glass Lewis is seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law while the case proceeds.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Since the passage of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act in 2022, state-level Anti-DEI legislation has proliferated rapidly across the country. While early laws focused primarily on restricting DEI-related hiring, admissions, and instruction in public education, many have since expanded to target private employers and advisory firms. As of mid-2025, approximately 20 states have passed some form of Anti-DEI legislation, with at least 16 imposing mandates or restrictions that apply in whole or in part to the private sector.

 

The Texas statute challenged by Glass Lewis represents a notable evolution in this trend — shifting from the prohibition of DEI content to the compelled disclosure of intent. Under the law, any firm whose advice reflects the relevance of DEI, ESG, or related factors must include a disclaimer that the advice is “not being provided solely in the financial interest of the company’s shareholders.” Glass Lewis argues that this requirement violates the First Amendment by compelling speech that aligns with the state’s political preferences, effectively forcing the company to undermine or discredit its own analysis in public-facing materials. The lawsuit also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague, citing the lack of clarity in what language or reasoning would trigger the disclosure requirement.

 

While courts have generally upheld Anti-DEI laws aimed at a government’s own internal operations — such as the federal executive order Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs — those that reach beyond the government’s direct authority have faced stronger judicial scrutiny. Courts have repeatedly found that laws restricting private workplace DEI efforts, such as certain provisions of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, violate the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and failing to offer constitutionally sufficient clarity. Glass Lewis’s case follows this line of challenge, arguing that Texas’s law goes beyond permissible regulation and instead forces ideological conformity under threat of enforcement.

 

Given the rapidly evolving legal environment, companies — particularly those engaged in governance, investment advisory, or public-facing DEI communication — should consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws that bear on their DEI-related activities, disclosures, or frameworks.

 

BRIDGE POV

The Texas law challenged by Glass Lewis is part of a growing effort to undermine the legitimacy of DEI and ESG as components of corporate strategy — not by refuting their value, but by forcing companies to publicly disown them. The law doesn’t just regulate conduct; it compels firms to issue disclaimers that frame diversity, equity, or sustainability considerations as incompatible with shareholder interest. The goal is to discredit an entire category of business analysis and intimidate firms into silence.

 

This isn’t just a First Amendment issue — it’s a direct attack on institutional autonomy. At stake is whether companies retain the right to assess material risk and long-term value on their own terms, or whether they must now clear those judgments with political gatekeepers. Proxy advisors, investment firms, public companies, and even nonprofits could be subject to similar mandates if this model spreads.

 

Leaders must resist the normalization of these tactics. Risk analysis is not activism. Corporate governance is not political speech. And DEI, ESG, and long-term value are not mutually exclusive — they are inseparable when done well. 
 

This is the moment to hold the line on what fiduciary responsibility really means.

1. Review all DEI and ESG Disclosures for Legal Exposure: Work with counsel to assess whether your existing public reports, investor communications, or proxy materials could trigger disclosure requirements in states with Anti-DEI or compelled-speech laws. Where appropriate, revise language to reflect a defensible business case while preserving core commitments.
2. Reaffirm DEI and ESG as Material Business Factors: Internally and externally, state clearly that DEI and ESG factors are part of your company’s broader risk, governance, and long-term value frameworks. Avoid allowing silence — or disclaimer — to signal retreat. Consistency across functions (legal, investor relations, HR, comms) is key.
3. Support Legal and Industry Challenges to Viewpoint Discrimination: Engage with industry groups, governance coalitions, or legal advocacy efforts challenging unconstitutional state laws. These are not isolated cases — they are part of a coordinated campaign to control corporate speech and strategy. Collective resistance will shape what’s possible in the next five years.