IN THIS ISSUE

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

Python Software Foundation Withdraws Application for $1.5M NSF Grant Over Anti-DEI Conditions

• Python plan to boost software security foiled by Trump admin’s anti-DEI rules 

 

OVERVIEW
On October 27, 2025, the Python Software Foundation (PSF) announced that it had withdrawn its application—and rejected the accompanying grant award—of approximately US $1.5 million from the National Science Foundation (NSF) after being presented with grant-award conditions the PSF deemed incompatible with its mission. The proposed funding was part of the NSF’s “Safety, Security and Privacy of Open Source Ecosystems” program, designed to support security improvements for the Python language ecosystem.

 

According to the PSF, the problematic condition required the PSF to affirm that it “[does] not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.” The PSF stated that this restriction would apply not only to the funded project, but to its entire organization, and included a claw-back provision for previously disbursed funds in the event of non-compliance.

 

Given the PSF’s mission—to promote and support a diverse and international community of Python programmers—the Board voted unanimously to withdraw from the award rather than accept conditions that would conflict with its values. The Foundation emphasized the decision was difficult given that the $1.5 million grant would have been its largest to date, but the board concluded the terms posed a material risk to their operational integrity and reputation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Python Software Foundation’s withdrawal from the NSF award highlights the expanding application of federal grant conditions implementing recent executive orders on DEI. The relevant provision stems from the Executive Order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, which directs agencies to require certification that grantees do not operate programs advancing “discriminatory equity ideology.”

 

In this case, the National Science Foundation incorporated that requirement into its standard grant language, extending the certification obligation to the recipient organization as a whole rather than to the specific funded project. The clause also authorized potential recovery of funds in the event of a violation.

 

Such conditions implicate long-standing federal grant and administrative law principles, including the government’s authority under the Spending Clause to attach policy conditions to funding, and the constraints established by the First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act on conditions that reach beyond the scope of the funded activity. While no legal challenge was initiated, the PSF’s withdrawal demonstrates how these certification provisions are now being applied across research and nonprofit institutions.

 

BRIDGE POV
The Python Software Foundation’s decision to withdraw from the NSF grant underscores how anti-DEI directives are reverberating across scientific and technical agencies. By embedding ideological language into grant certifications, the government has expanded the reach of policy beyond program administration into questions of constitutional and operational integrity.

 

This shift risks excluding qualified organizations from participating in projects central to innovation, cybersecurity, and national resilience. In effect, it transforms what was once a contractual compliance issue into a test of whether the federal government may condition access to research funding on silence or conformity regarding diversity and inclusion.

 

The PSF’s refusal represents not only a legal safeguard but an assertion of institutional autonomy and principled leadership. In choosing mission over money, the organization affirmed that the strength of national research and open-source infrastructure depends not only on technical excellence, but on the freedom of those who sustain it to operate without compelled ideological restriction—and on the courage of institutions to defend that freedom when it is tested.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reinforce Institutional Autonomy: Establish clear governance policies affirming that mission, values, and independence will guide acceptance or refusal of funding—particularly when external conditions may compromise organizational integrity.
    
2. Align Compliance with Values: Create cross-functional review processes (legal, ethics, and leadership) to evaluate new federal or state requirements for alignment with institutional commitments to inclusion and nondiscrimination before execution.
    
3. Lead with Transparency and Courage: When funding or partnership decisions test core principles, communicate decisions openly and factually—linking them to mission, trust, and long-term credibility rather than political positioning.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

Google Ends Women Techmakers Program as Part of a Broader Retrenchment of DEI Efforts 

• ‘Their history is just erased’: Google drops a key program for boosting women in tech

 

OVERVIEW

On October 8, 2025, Google announced that it will transfer its Women Techmakers program to the nonprofit Technovation, concluding more than a decade of direct company oversight. The initiative, created in 2014 to support women in technology through mentorship, education, and community events, will now be operated independently with transitional funding from Google. 

 

The company stated that the transition is intended to ensure the program’s long-term sustainability while allowing Technovation to expand its reach to new audiences. 

 

The announcement prompted disappointment from many participants and industry advocates, who viewed Women Techmakers as one of the few major corporate platforms dedicated to advancing women in technology. 

 

Former program ambassadors described the change as a setback for visibility and professional development within the sector, noting that the initiative had provided critical community and career-building infrastructure for women in tech globally. Google has not announced whether it will introduce a new initiative to replace the program but confirmed that it will maintain limited sponsorship support for Technovation during the transition.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Google’s transfer of the Women Techmakers program to an independent nonprofit underscores the distinction between voluntary corporate diversity initiatives and legally mandated compliance obligations. Because Women Techmakers operated as a discretionary community-engagement effort rather than an employment or contracting program, its discontinuation does not implicate federal or state equal employment opportunity laws.

 

However, as a major federal contractor, Google now operates within a heightened compliance environment shaped by recent executive orders and enforcement priorities that scrutinize identity-specific initiatives under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In that context, moving Women Techmakers outside of the company may also serve to limit legal exposure associated with programs perceived as preferential.

 

BRIDGE POV
Google’s transition of Women Techmakers to an independent nonprofit reflects both pragmatic compliance management and a more cautious posture toward identity-based initiatives. The company has framed the move as a way to sustain the program’s mission through a trusted external partner while preserving resources and ensuring long-term stability. That rationale aligns with the current regulatory environment and the legal prudence expected of a federal contractor.

 

At the same time, many participants viewed the decision as a retreat from a program that had offered tangible professional and community support for women in technology. For them, the handoff represents a loss of direct corporate commitment and visibility. The moment captures a broader tension companies now face: navigating new compliance realities without abandoning the communities and values that helped define their culture. How effectively organizations strike that balance will shape both reputational trust and employee engagement in the months ahead.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Strengthen Compliance Alignment: Review existing DEI, mentorship, and community programs to confirm they are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner and clearly separated from employment decision-making.
    
2. Clarify Governance Structures: Determine which initiatives should remain internal versus which may be better advanced through independent or nonprofit partners to minimize legal exposure while preserving strategic objectives.
    
3. Reinforce Communication and Trust: Ensure that any structural or programmatic changes are accompanied by consistent internal and external messaging that reaffirms commitment to inclusion, equity, and opportunity.

COURTS & LITIGATION

Former Amazon Driver Sues EEOC Over Termination of Disparate Impact Case Following Trump Order 

• Ex-Amazon worker sues EEOC for dropping disparate impact cases after Trump order

 

OVERVIEW

On October 20, 2025, Leah Cross, a former Amazon delivery driver from Colorado, filed a federal lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), accusing the agency of unlawfully closing her discrimination case after eliminating the use of “disparate impact” liability. Cross originally filed her discrimination charge on May 22, 2023, alleging that Amazon’s break policies for delivery drivers—specifically, restrictions on restroom access and limited time allowances between deliveries—disproportionately harmed women employees, who often required longer or more frequent restroom breaks due to biological and medical needs. She argued that while the policy was neutral on its face, its effects were discriminatory in practice, denying female drivers equal working conditions compared to male colleagues.

 

Cross’s case remained under investigation until September 2025, when the EEOC issued an internal directive ordering all field offices to close complaints based solely on disparate-impact theories of discrimination. The directive followed President Trump’s April 2025 executive order, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which instructed federal agencies to discontinue enforcement actions based on statistical imbalances rather than demonstrable intent to discriminate. In a notice to Cross, the EEOC stated that her charge “no longer qualifies for investigation” under the revised policy, effectively ending her claim without a factual determination.

 

In her lawsuit, Cross contends that the agency’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act and her rights under Title VII, asserting that the EEOC has a statutory duty to investigate and pursue credible allegations of unlawful discrimination. Her case marks the first known legal challenge by a worker contesting the EEOC’s post-order policy shift and illustrates the immediate human impact of dismantling a legal framework that, for more than half a century, has enabled employees to challenge structural inequities in the workplace.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Leah Cross’s lawsuit against the EEOC challenges the agency’s authority to terminate investigations based on disparate-impact liability following recent executive orders. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC is responsible for investigating credible allegations of discrimination and enforcing federal equal employment opportunity laws. The agency’s September 2025 directive—eliminating all open investigations relying on disparate-impact theory—marked a major departure from decades of administrative precedent.

 

The disparate-impact framework, established by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and reaffirmed in later cases such as Smith v. City of Jackson (2005), permits claims against employment practices that are facially neutral but have disproportionate adverse effects on protected groups. The April 2025 Executive Order, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directed federal agencies to discontinue enforcement actions based on statistical disparities absent proof of intentional discrimination.

 

Cross’s complaint alleges that the EEOC’s adoption of this directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)and conflicts with the agency’s statutory enforcement obligations under Title VII. Her case is the first known legal challenge contesting the EEOC’s implementation of the April 2025 executive order, marking an initial test of how the agency’s revised policies will be evaluated within the federal judiciary.

 

BRIDGE POV
The lawsuit filed by Leah Cross reflects a pivotal moment in the ongoing redefinition of federal civil rights enforcement. For decades, the theory of disparate impact has served as a cornerstone of workplace equity law, enabling employees to challenge neutral policies that produce unequal outcomes. Its elimination from agency practice marks a fundamental shift in how discrimination is recognized, measured, and remedied.

 

This development underscores the narrowing of the federal framework governing employment practices—and the increased importance of internal accountability mechanisms. While the administration’s policy realignment places greater emphasis on intent-based discrimination, organizations remain responsible for preventing systemic bias within their own operations. 

 

The Cross case illustrates how the rollback of enforcement at the federal level may shift the burden of equity oversight to employers themselves, making corporate self-governance and transparency even more critical to maintaining trust and compliance.
 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reassess Risk and Compliance Frameworks: Review internal equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies to ensure they identify and address potential disparate impacts, even where not required by current federal enforcement priorities.
    
2. Strengthen Data Analysis and Auditing: Implement regular monitoring of hiring, pay, promotion, and scheduling outcomes to detect disparities that could expose the organization to litigation or reputational risk under state or local laws.
    
3. Clarify Communication and Training: Reinforce that the absence of federal enforcement does not diminish employer obligations under Title VII or related state statutes. Train managers and HR leaders to apply nondiscriminatory practices consistently and document compliance.

COURTS & LITIGATION

Anti-DEI “Meritocracy” ETF Shuts Down After Failing to Gain Market Traction and Facing Fiduciary Fallout

• Trustees vote to shutter two ETFs from startup manager Azoria Capital

 

OVERVIEW

On October 16, 2025, Tidal Financial Group announced the closure and liquidation of the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF (ticker SPXM), an “anti-woke” fund launched in December 2024 by Azoria CEO James Fishback at an event held at Mar-a-Lago. Promoted as an alternative to the S&P 500, the fund mirrored the index while excluding companies that adopted quantitative diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals—an explicit attempt to reward firms described as prioritizing “merit over identity.”

 

Despite heavy publicity and political visibility, the ETF failed to attract significant assets or institutional attention, reflecting limited market demand for investment products positioned in opposition to inclusion. At its peak, the fund managed approximately $35 million—far below the scale needed for sustainable operation.

 

In interviews earlier this year, Fishback acknowledged that the thesis underpinning the fund had not held: corporate leaders across sectors continued to affirm diversity commitments as essential to innovation, competitiveness, and long-term value creation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The liquidation of the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF highlights the intersection of fiduciary duty, governance standards, and the limits of political positioning within regulated financial markets. As the fund’s administrator, Tidal Financial Group and its independent Board of Trustees were obligated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to act in the best interests of shareholders. 

 

The decision followed a September 2025 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which permanently enjoined CEO James Fishback from certain investment activities after finding that he had breached his prior employment agreement and engaged in conduct inconsistent with fiduciary standards. Although the court order did not directly involve the ETF, the judgment materially affected its sponsor’s credibility and compliance posture, triggering enhanced review by the board.

 

If trustees determine that compliance or governance concerns may affect investor interests, they have the authority to protect investors through liquidation or other remedial action.

 

BRIDGE POV
The shutdown of the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF illustrates the limits of framing investment strategy around political or cultural opposition. While the fund’s sponsors sought to capitalize on growing debate over corporate DEI practices, capital markets largely rejected the premise that inclusion and fiduciary performance are in conflict. Investor behavior remained grounded in fundamentals—governance, transparency, and long-term value—rather than ideology.

 

The fund’s closure underscores that market credibility depends on disciplined execution and compliance as much as on narrative. The decision by Tidal’s board to close the ETF reflects both fiduciary prudence and an affirmation of professional standards that transcend politics. At the same time, it reinforces that the marketplace continues to view diversity and inclusion as compatible with, and often essential to, sound corporate governance. The enduring challenge for leaders is to align values with value creation in a way that sustains trust among investors, employees, and the public.
 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Fiduciary Integrity: Ensure that any product or program—financial or otherwise—is governed by rigorous oversight and compliance protocols, especially when positioned around social or cultural issues.
    
2. Anchor Messaging in Market Evidence: When communicating about inclusion, performance, or merit, link assertions to verifiable data and business outcomes rather than ideology or political framing.
    
3. Maintain Strategic Distance from Polarization: Build resilience by keeping mission-driven initiatives focused on measurable impact, investor trust, and long-term sustainability rather than transient political narratives.