IN THIS ISSUE

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

17 State AGs File Amicus Brief Defending DEI Programs in Challenge to Trump Executive Order

• Amicus Brief - Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump 
• Attorneys general file amicus brief supporting DEI policies

OVERVIEW
As Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, on September 25, 2025, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general — led by Illinois, California, and Massachusetts — filed an amicus brief supporting legal challenges to Executive Order 14173 — Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. The filing urges the appellate court to uphold a lower-court injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions.

The brief argues that EO 14173 is vague, exceeds executive authority, and threatens billions in federal funding for programs that include DEI-related activities. It further contends that the order improperly chills lawful nondiscrimination and inclusion efforts undertaken by states, employers, and educational institutions.

This builds directly on the litigation we first reported in Issue 6, when a suit brought by Chicago Women in Trades led a federal judge in Illinois to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the Department of Labor from implementing EO 14173’s certification requirement. That provision would have forced federal grant recipients and contractors to certify that they do not operate DEI initiatives deemed out of compliance with the administration’s anti-DEI directives.
 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The amicus brief filed by 17 state attorneys general underscores the breadth of legal opposition to Executive Order 14173. At issue is whether the federal government can condition access to grants and contracts on certifications that institutions do not operate DEI programs deemed out of compliance with the order.

The states argue that well-designed DEI initiatives are lawful under existing federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI and Title VII, and often function as tools for compliance rather than violations. They further contend that EO 14173 is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, failing to define what constitutes a “discriminatory DEI practice” and leaving contractors and grantees without fair notice of what conduct is prohibited.

The brief also raises First Amendment concerns, asserting that the order uses funding as leverage to suppress the expression of institutional values related to equity and inclusion. By threatening federal support for programs that advance workforce diversity, education, and public welfare, the amici argue the order not only exceeds executive authority but also undermines state interests in economic development and autonomy.

BRIDGE POV
The decision by 17 state attorneys general to intervene directly underscores how much is at stake in the fight over Executive Order 14173. At its core, the order seeks to redefine lawful inclusion efforts as discriminatory — not by act of Congress, but by executive fiat. The multi-state brief pushes back against this inversion, making clear that DEI initiatives are not violations of civil rights law but tools for advancing compliance with it.

This is a critical moment for institutional autonomy. If the federal government can force grant recipients and contractors to disavow DEI as a condition of funding, it sets a precedent that values and commitments can be dictated through financial leverage. 

Defending inclusion is not only a legal question, but also a test of whether institutions will capitulate to political bargaining or uphold their missions.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Review DEI Programs Through a Compliance Lens: Ensure existing initiatives are framed as advancing compliance with Title VI, Title VII, and related statutes. Document how programs strengthen equal opportunity and avoid rigid quotas that courts have deemed unlawful.
    
2. Prepare for Funding-Condition Risks: Identify all federal grants or contracts subject to certification requirements under EO 14173. Map the potential financial exposure if certifications are challenged or refused, and develop contingency plans.
    
3. Coordinate Legal and Policy Advocacy: Engage with peer institutions, state coalitions, and trade associations to align strategies and share best practices in defending DEI. Collective advocacy amplifies institutional positions and provides strength in numbers against federal overreach.

See also: Lawsuit Filed by Chicago Women in Trades Leads to TRO Blocking EO 14173 Certification Requirement (Issue #6)

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

Omnicom–IPG Merger Raises Alarms Over Limits on Corporate Free Speech

• FTC Gives Final Omnicom/IPG Approval, Imposes Ideological Restrictions

OVERVIEW

On September 27, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conditionally approved Omnicom’s estimated $13.5 billion acquisition of Interpublic Group (IPG), creating one of the largest advertising and communications holding companies in the world.

Alongside divestitures to preserve competition, the consent decree introduces novel restrictions on corporate speech and coordination. The merged entity is prohibited from requiring subsidiaries or affiliates to adopt unified positions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, climate disclosures, or social responsibility statements. In addition, both firms are barred from initiating or coordinating brand safety block lists or media exclusions based on political or ideological viewpoints, with a narrow exception allowing agencies to honor explicit client requests to avoid specific platforms.

Critics warn the conditions amount to government overreach into enterprise communications, effectively constraining how private firms set and enforce corporate values. Supporters argue they are necessary safeguards against collusion in the advertising market. Both Omnicom and IPG have indicated they are evaluating potential grounds for appeal.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The FTC’s consent decree departs from traditional antitrust remedies, extending beyond market structure into corporate speech. In addition to requiring divestitures, it bars the merged firm from mandating unified DEI, climate, or social policy positions and from coordinating brand safety block lists based on political or ideological factors.

The agency grounds its authority in Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition.” Yet private firms have historically retained broad discretion over viewpoint-based advertising decisions, raising questions about whether conditions tied to merger approval can restrict that discretion. Courts have recognized that agreements reached under threat of regulatory denial may still implicate constitutional rights, particularly under the First Amendment.

The inclusion of a client-driven exception highlights this tension: advertisers retain the freedom to make content decisions, while agencies are restricted from embedding those choices into firmwide policies.
 

BRIDGE POV
The FTC’s decision underscores how regulatory leverage is being used not only to shape competition but also to dictate how companies articulate enterprise-wide values. By prohibiting unified DEI or climate commitments and restricting the use of brand safety block lists, the order pushes government oversight into areas of corporate governance traditionally left to boards and executives.

This is not new law. It is capitulation to conditions imposed through merger review — conditions that raise direct risks to freedom of speech and institutional autonomy.

It also has the potential to threaten client trust: if agency values are compromised by imposed political ideologies, brands may question whether those agencies can authentically represent their values without putting reputation or business at risk. 

If regulators continue to extend such leverage, the long-term consequence is an erosion of corporate independence in defining and upholding institutional commitments.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Institutional Autonomy: Publicly restate your organization’s right to define its own values and standards — making clear that enterprise-wide commitments to DEI, climate, or governance are set by leadership, not by political bargaining.
    
2. Safeguard Trust Across Stakeholders: Ensure transparency in how values-based decisions are made and communicated. Clients, partners, and consumers need confidence that your commitments are authentic and not compromised by external political pressure.
    
3. Scenario Plan for Regulatory Leverage: Prepare governance playbooks for merger reviews, funding negotiations, or other regulatory checkpoints where speech-related conditions may surface. Being proactive allows institutions to defend their autonomy while managing risk.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

Trump’s H-1B Fee Signals New Barriers to Global Talent and Corporate Innovation

• H-1B FAQ | USCIS 
• What H-1B Fees Mean for Jobs and Innovation

OVERVIEW

On September 19, Trump issued a proclamation entitled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, imposing a $100,000 supplemental fee on every new H-1B visa petition filed after September 21. The fee does not apply to renewals or existing visa holders, but it represents the most expensive surcharge ever attached to an employment-based visa.

The proclamation is one of the first major implementations of Executive Order 14181 — Ending Abuse of Nonimmigrant Worker Programs and Restoring Opportunities for American Workers, issued in March 2025. That order directed DHS and the State Department to tighten employment-based visa programs, including H-1B, and follows earlier enforcement actions we reported in Issues 17 and 22 under the Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative.

The administration has framed the new surcharge as a way to “restore fairness” for American workers. Business leaders warn instead that it will deter companies from hiring global talent, accelerate offshoring of high-skill roles, and weaken U.S. competitiveness in innovation. For industries heavily reliant on H-1B pipelines — including technology, healthcare, engineering, and higher education — the fee represents both a significant cost increase and a new barrier to workforce planning.
 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The $100,000 surcharge on new H-1B petitions represents an unprecedented use of executive authority to reshape employment-based immigration. While presidents have broad discretion over visa issuance under the Immigration and Nationality Act, attaching such a significant fee as a condition of entry raises questions about statutory limits and constitutional review under the Spending Clause.

The administration has justified the fee as a labor protection measure, consistent with Executive Order 14181, which directed agencies to curb perceived “abuses” of nonimmigrant worker programs. However, courts have historically scrutinized policies that appear to use executive power to achieve outcomes not authorized by Congress. Legal challenges are likely to test whether the surcharge constitutes a permissible regulatory condition or an unlawful barrier to entry.

For employers, the immediate impact is clear: higher costs and uncertainty in workforce planning. For policymakers, the longer-term issue is whether executive authority can be used to impose financial barriers that effectively restrict lawful visa categories without new legislation.

BRIDGE POV
The new H-1B surcharge is not just a cost increase — it is a signal of intent. By imposing the steepest visa fee in history, the administration is using executive authority to redefine when and how U.S. companies may access global talent. This represents a sharp break from decades of bipartisan policy that treated high-skill immigration as a driver of innovation and competitiveness.

Access to international expertise can no longer be assumed. The risk is not only higher expense, but also increased volatility in workforce planning and a compromise to both growth and innovation. 

Ironically, this measure intended to protect American jobs may have the unintended consequence of accelerating the offshoring of high-skill work, forcing companies to move research, engineering, and development roles abroad rather than expand them at home.
 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Quantify Talent Cost Exposure: Model the impact of the $100,000 surcharge on your hiring plans, including potential ripple effects on project budgets and timelines. Identify functions most vulnerable to disruption if H-1B access becomes prohibitively expensive.
    
2. Diversify Workforce Pipelines: Strengthen alternative recruitment channels, including partnerships with U.S. universities, upskilling programs, and near-shore or remote workforce strategies. Evaluate which functions could shift abroad under cost pressure, and plan deliberately rather than reactively.
    
3. Reinforce Strategic Positioning: Communicate to stakeholders — boards, employees, and investors — how your institution will continue to access top talent while defending innovation and competitiveness. Clarity of strategy reduces the risk that workforce adjustments, including potential offshoring, are perceived as destabilizing.
    

See also: DOJ Announces First Settlement Under New Enforcement Priorities (Issue #17); DOJ Announces Second Settlement Under Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative (Issue #22)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

Bot Networks Fuel Brand Vulnerability in the Culture Wars 

• Bot Networks Are Helping Drag Consumer Brands Into the Culture Wars 

OVERVIEW

Recent investigations, including congressional testimony and independent digital forensics, show that coordinated bot networks are amplifying controversies against major consumer brands. These automated campaigns often surge immediately after a company announces or defends commitments tied to DEI, LGBTQ+ inclusion, or climate initiatives, creating the appearance of widespread backlash.

The manufactured volume can influence media coverage, rattle investors, and pressure boards into rapid course corrections — even when genuine consumer opposition is limited. Experts warn that this distortion leaves companies vulnerable: leadership decisions may be shaped by manipulated signals rather than authentic market sentiment.

While bot amplification intensifies reputational risk, it does not eliminate accountability. Analysts stress that poor governance, inconsistent messaging, or abrupt reversals by leadership remain central drivers of lasting damage. In this sense, bots act as accelerants, not root causes — magnifying vulnerabilities where institutional alignment is already weak.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

There is currently no comprehensive federal law that directly regulates the use of bot networks in cultural or consumer brand debates. Certain statutes address digital fraud or foreign interference, but most domestic bot activity aimed at amplifying political or ideological messages falls outside existing legal frameworks.

The legal exposure for companies arises indirectly. Manufactured backlash can distort investor perceptions, creating openings for shareholder lawsuits alleging boards failed to manage reputational or ESG-related risks. Public statements made under pressure — about boycotts, advertising, or product safety — may also draw scrutiny if later deemed misleading, particularly under the FTC’s authority to police deceptive practices.

The law does not distinguish between backlash that is organic and backlash that is artificially generated, leaving companies responsible for defending their practices under the same standards regardless of how controversies emerge.

BRIDGE POV
The amplification of backlash through bot networks shows how manufactured signals can distort the operating environment for brands. While companies cannot control these networks, they can control their response. Retreating from commitments under artificial pressure only compounds reputational risk, signaling that values are negotiable.

This is both a cautionary tale and a test of leadership. It is critical to remain pragmatic and resist reacting to political volatility, while also distinguishing authentic stakeholder sentiment from manipulated noise. The stronger the commitment to clear, consistent values, the less vulnerable a company becomes to digitally engineered storms designed to push it off course.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Strengthen Signal Verification: Build systems to assess whether online backlash reflects authentic consumer sentiment or manipulated campaigns. Use digital forensics, social listening, and third-party verification to guide executive decision-making.
    
2. Reinforce Values Consistency: Ensure internal and external commitments on DEI, ESG, and brand purpose are aligned. Consistency reduces the risk that hostile campaigns can exploit gaps between what a company says and what it does.
    
3. Prepare Crisis Playbooks: Develop response protocols that differentiate between genuine stakeholder concerns and manufactured pressure. Empower leaders and boards to act with clarity rather than capitulation when digital noise escalates.