IN THIS ISSUE

EDUCATION & ADMISSIONS

Trump Administration Redirects Half-Billion to HBCUs While Cutting Grants for Hispanic-Serving Colleges Amid DEI Crackdown 

• U.S. Department of Education Ends Funding to Racially Discriminatory Discretionary Grant Programs at Minority-Serving Institutions 
• U.S. Department of Education Makes Historic Grant Investments in Programs That Bolster Educational Outcomes  
• The Trump administration’s actions on higher education aren’t impacting HBCUs—yet

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Department of Education announced a one-time redirection of nearly $500 million in discretionary funds to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) for FY2025, describing the move as part of a broader shift to “merit and excellence” priorities. Department materials indicate the additional funding lifts total HBCU allocations to roughly $1.34–$1.38 billion for the fiscal year, with a 48% increase for HBCUs and a similar boost for tribal institutions. 
 

To finance the increase, the Department is halting approximately $350 million in discretionary grants tied to Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs)—including Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs)—and reprogramming those funds to other priorities such as charter schools and civics education. The Department framed the discontinued MSI grants as “racially discriminatory,” while noting that some mandatory MSI funding streams continue. 

The funding shift comes as the administration intensifies scrutiny of higher-education programs through an anti-DEI lens and seeks to realign federal education spending without new congressional appropriations. Legal challenges are already underway, with states and advocacy groups contesting the Department’s authority to cancel congressionally authorized awards.
 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Department of Education’s reallocation of funds raises questions about statutory authority and compliance with congressional appropriations. Federal law requires that funds appropriated by Congress be spent in accordance with legislative directives; while the Department has some discretion in administering competitive grant programs, it does not have authority to cancel or redirect congressionally mandated awards without new legislation. This creates potential exposure under the Appropriations Clause, which prohibits executive agencies from effectively rewriting spending priorities absent clear statutory authorization.

Additionally, the Department’s framing of discontinued MSI grants as “racially discriminatory” invokes constitutional considerations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits race and national origin discrimination in federally funded programs. While federal agencies may scrutinize whether grant criteria comply with Title VI, categorically halting grants to HSIs and other MSIs could be challenged as arbitrary, exceeding administrative discretion, and discriminatory in its own right.

Litigation risk is heightened by precedent: federal courts have already blocked or narrowed the administration's executive actions in the education space when they were found to exceed statutory or constitutional limits. States, institutions, and advocacy groups are likely to argue that the Department’s actions amount to an impermissible reprogramming of congressionally authorized funds.

BRIDGE POV
The administration’s reallocation of education funds underscores a broader strategy: using claims of "merit" and "nondiscrimination" to redirect resources in ways that destabilize long-standing equity frameworks.
 

While HBCUs and Tribal Colleges receive meaningful short-term gains, the elimination of MSI and HSI grants signals a zero-sum approach that weakens the broader ecosystem of minority-serving institutions. 
 

This maneuver reframes equity commitments as liabilities and demonstrates how federal policy can directly reshape access to talent pipelines, research partnerships, and community trust.
 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Audit Federal Funding Dependencies: Identify whether your organization partners with, recruits from, or relies on institutions affected by these shifts. Map potential disruptions to talent supply, research collaborations, or community pipelines.
    
2. Reinforce Equity Through Private Investment: Where public funding becomes unstable, step in with targeted scholarships, fellowships, and institutional partnerships to sustain diverse educational pipelines. Continuity of investment strengthens both resilience and reputation.
    
3. Scenario-Plan for Policy Volatility: Prepare for sudden regulatory or funding changes by aligning legal, DEI, and government affairs functions. Ensure leadership can respond swiftly without signaling retreat from equity commitments.

LGBTQ+ RIGHTS

House-Passed NDAA Inserts Sweeping Anti-LGBTQI+ & Anti-DEI Riders, Provoking Legal and Humanitarian Alarm

• NWLC Responds to House Passing NDAA with Anti-LGBTQI+ and Anti-DEI Provisions
• CEC Slams Republicans’ Anti-LGBTQI+ Attacks in NDAA | Congressional Equality Caucus

OVERVIEW

On September 10, 2025, the House narrowly passed the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), authorizing more than $850 billion in defense spending while attaching sweeping riders that target LGBTQ+ rights and DEI initiatives. The bill prohibits funding for gender-affirming care, bars recognition of gender identity in military records and facilities, and seeks to roll back or eliminate DEI-related offices and programs within the Department of Defense.

The measures also restrict defense contractors and grant recipients from using funds for DEI training, recruitment, or research. While the Senate is expected to strip many of these provisions in conference, their inclusion marks one of the broadest federal efforts to curtail LGBTQ+ protections and dismantle DEI under the guise of defense policy. 

Civil rights groups have already raised legal and humanitarian concerns, particularly around healthcare access and equal treatment for service members.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

By embedding anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-DEI provisions in the NDAA—a must-pass defense bill—the House is attempting to legislate restrictive social policy under the cover of national security. Riders that would prohibit gender-affirming care or deny recognition of gender identity would likely conflict with existing civil rights protections, including Title VII and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and raise constitutional equal protection concerns. Provisions limiting DEI training or data collection may also undermine statutory obligations around transparency and nondiscrimination.

Because the NDAA would become binding law if enacted, these provisions would shift legal risk onto military institutions and contractors, exposing them to claims from service members or employees whose rights are compromised. 

Courts have consistently held that national security interests do not override constitutional guarantees, making these riders especially vulnerable to challenge if they survive conference negotiations.

BRIDGE POV
The House’s inclusion of anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-DEI riders in the NDAA signals a deliberate strategy to advance social policy changes under the guise of national security. 

Even if many provisions are stripped in conference, their presence in a must-pass defense bill normalizes attempts to roll back established rights and equity frameworks through indirect channels. For organizations connected to defense contracting, research, or supply chains, the message is clear: federal funding streams are increasingly being leveraged as tools to enforce ideological agendas, raising both legal exposure and reputational risk.

Companies that appear to accept or benefit from these provisions risk being seen as complicit in institutionalizing discrimination. Beyond legal exposure, the deeper threat is erosion of trust with employees, recruits, and the broader public if equity commitments are perceived as negotiable under political pressure.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Assess Defense-Linked Exposure: Evaluate whether your company receives contracts, subcontracts, or research partnerships tied to the Department of Defense. Map out potential vulnerabilities if DEI-related obligations are restricted or politicized.
    
2. Reinforce Inclusive Benefits and Policies: Ensure that employee healthcare and workplace policies—especially for LGBTQ+ employees and families—exceed the minimum federal baseline. Demonstrating continuity of protections builds trust with your workforce and signals to external stakeholders that your equity commitments are not negotiable under political pressure.
    
3. Prepare Advocacy and Compliance Pathways: Develop a dual strategy: position your organization to comply with binding federal mandates while also coordinating with industry groups to advocate against provisions that erode equity. Align government affairs, legal, and HR leadership to respond quickly if the NDAA’s riders survive in whole or in part.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

SHRM’s Inclusion Conference Sparks Uproar After Main Stage Slot for Anti-DEI Activist 

• DEI and HR leaders are mad at SHRM (again) 

OVERVIEW

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) faced backlash by giving a main stage platform to a flagrant anti-DEI activist. The decision drew criticism from civil rights organizations, business leaders, and SHRM members, who argued that elevating an anti-DEI activist at a conference designed to advance equity undermines SHRM’s credibility as the nation’s leading HR association.

The move follows SHRM’s earlier removal of “equity” from its DEI framework and the rebranding of its inclusion conference. Many practitioners see this as legitimizing voices opposed to DEI and undermining HR’s credibility as a steward of safe and equitable workplaces. 

In defending the choice, SHRM framed its programming as an effort to encourage “dialogue,” but critics noted that Starbuck lacks expertise in employment law, human capital strategy, or organizational inclusion. The controversy has intensified ongoing debate over whether SHRM is aligning with the political movement to dismantle workplace DEI, raising questions about its influence on HR practices across industries.
 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

SHRM’s decision to feature conservative commentator Robbie Starbuck, an outspoken critic of DEI, at its Inclusion Conference carries no direct legal effect, but it intersects with employer compliance obligations. 
 

As the nation’s largest HR membership association, SHRM sets expectations for many organizations’ workplace practices. When it platforms voices without expertise in HR, compliance, or civil rights law, it risks spreading misinformation about employer obligations under statutes such as Title VII, the ADA, and related anti-discrimination laws. 
 

Federal civil rights laws remain unchanged: Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employers who repeat or adopt rhetoric that undermines these standards may expose themselves to discrimination claims, particularly where speech or practices create a hostile work environment.

The controversy follows SHRM’s earlier removal of “equity” from its DEI framework, reinforcing practitioner concerns that the association is retreating from established inclusion standards. While SHRM defends the decision on the basis of “viewpoint diversity,” the law does not shield workplace or employer-facing speech that amounts to harassment or discrimination. 

Giving legitimacy to a figure without relevant expertise who advances incendiary anti-DEI claims may undermine SHRM’s capacity to advise organizations responsibly, particularly when litigation or regulatory scrutiny is possible.

BRIDGE POV
By giving a main stage platform to an anti-DEI activist, SHRM has blurred the line between political theater and compliance guidance. Federal civil rights laws have not changed—Title VII, the ADA, and related statutes still prohibit discrimination and require employers to maintain equitable workplaces. When the nation’s leading HR association elevates a figure with no HR or compliance expertise, it signals to some employers that equity is optional and risks eroding trust in HR’s role as a guardian of workplace equity.
 

The decision underscores how industry institutions can normalize political rhetoric at odds with civil rights law. While SHRM may defend the move as fostering “dialogue,” employers must distinguish between political narratives and compliance imperatives. The reputational and legal risks lie in adopting or echoing rhetoric that could be construed as hostile or discriminatory in practice.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Legal Baselines Internally: Remind HR and leadership teams that federal and state anti-discrimination laws remain in force, regardless of industry conferences or shifting narratives. Reinforce training and policies tied to Title VII, ADA, and other statutory obligations.
    
2. Clarify Organizational Positioning: Communicate clearly to employees and stakeholders how your company defines inclusion, particularly when external associations send mixed signals. Distinguish between political debate and compliance imperatives to maintain credibility and trust.
    
3. Separate Professional Development from Political Programming: Evaluate conferences, associations, and external forums for alignment with compliance standards and organizational values. Where programming strays into political rhetoric, treat it as non-authoritative and reinforce that compliance and equity commitments remain grounded in law and business practice.