IN THIS ISSUE

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

State Department Moves to Classify DEI as a “Human Rights Violation,” Rewriting Global Rights Standards Through an Ideological Lens

• US says countries with DEI policies as infringing human rights

 

OVERVIEW

The U.S. State Department has issued new instructions to all U.S. embassies and consulates directing them to identify certain foreign DEI policies as potential “human rights violations” in the next cycle of its annual human-rights reporting. The guidance directs posts to flag government programs abroad that incorporate DEI considerations in hiring, education, or public services, as well as policies that subsidize abortion or facilitate large-scale migration.

 

This marks a departure from prior U.S. reporting practices, which generally treated gender-equity mandates, affirmative-action systems, and anti-discrimination access measures as part of equality protections. The updated framework aligns with the administration’s position that DEI-based preferences and identity-linked benefits may constitute discriminatory treatment.

 

In contrast, the European Union continues to ground its equality obligations in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which requires member states to prevent discrimination and promote inclusion. Governments including France, Germany, and the Netherlands have reiterated that DEI and workforce-equality measures remain legal obligations under EU law.

 

Human-rights organizations, including Human Rights First, have criticized the new U.S. guidance, warning that it redefines long-standing human-rights principles for ideological purposes.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The new guidance changes how the State Department will apply existing reporting authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act and related statutes that govern the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. U.S. embassies and consulates are required to compile factual material for these reports, which inform foreign-policy decisions but do not impose legal obligations on other countries.

 

Under the updated criteria, diplomatic posts are instructed to treat certain DEI-based policies, affirmative-action systems, abortion subsidies, and government-facilitated migration measures as potential infringements when assessing discrimination or rights conditions abroad. This approach narrows how the Department interprets “internationally recognized human rights” for internal reporting purposes, without altering statutory definitions or creating new legal standards.

 

The shift parallels domestic interpretations advanced by the administration and federal agencies that employment or education policies involving demographic preferences may violate U.S. anti-discrimination law if they differentiate on the basis of protected characteristics. By contrast, EU equality law—rooted in the EU Charter and binding directives—requires member states to maintain and enforce proactive anti-discrimination and inclusion measures. These obligations remain unaffected by changes in U.S. reporting criteria.

 

BRIDGE POV
The State Department’s guidance reflects a profound distortion of long-standing human-rights principles. Redefining DEI, reproductive-health access, or migration policy as “human rights violations” breaks sharply with the globally accepted understanding of human rights and continues the administration’s pattern of repurposing rights language to advance domestic ideological goals.

 

For global institutions, the obligation is not to follow shifting political semantics, but to remain anchored in the international human-rights framework that has governed for decades. Businesses, universities, and civil-society organizations operate in environments where the rights of women, LGBTQ+ people, migrants, and religious and ethnic minorities are not abstractions—they are part of the legal, social, and moral infrastructure that guides responsible governance.

 

Companies cannot afford to treat human rights as a movable political category or mirror governmental rhetoric that contradicts widely recognized global standards. Stability, credibility, and trust come from aligning with the internationally accepted definition of human rights—not the narrower, ideologically driven version being advanced in Washington.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Affirm Global Human-Rights Standards Publicly and Internally: Reiterate that your organization’s commitments are grounded in internationally recognized human-rights principles, not shifting political reinterpretations. Embed those standards in your global policies, codes of conduct, and governance frameworks.
    
2. Guard Against Policy Drift Driven by Political Framing: Ensure that U.S. political language does not quietly influence internal definitions of discrimination, equality, or rights. Require legal, HR, and public-policy teams to apply internationally recognized standards consistently across communications, training, and decision-making.
    
3. Strengthen Global Consistency Checks for Rights-Relevant Decisions: Before making changes to workforce, inclusion, recruitment, or public commitments, require a review to confirm alignment with internationally accepted human-rights norms—and to prevent inadvertent adoption of narrower, ideologically driven definitions.
    

See also: Europe Resists U.S. DEI Rollback, Backed by Investors and Governance Standards (Issue 38)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

Northwestern Mutual Holds Its DEI Line as EEOC Escalates Review with Subpoena and Access Demands

• EEOC says Northwestern Mutual won't hand over information on DEI policies

 

OVERVIEW

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against Northwestern Mutual as part of an investigation into the company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. The review stems from a discrimination complaint filed in March 2025 by Mark McNulty, an anti-money-laundering officer, who alleges he was passed over for a promotion because he is white, male, and American and had raised concerns about the company’s diversity initiatives.

 

According to the EEOC’s filing, the agency requested documents related to McNulty’s promotion process, Northwestern Mutual’s DEI policies, HR systems, and performance metrics, as well as an interview with the company’s vice president for DEI. The company produced some materials but objected to parts of the subpoena as overly broad and declined to provide the requested interview, prompting the EEOC to seek court enforcement.

 

Northwestern Mutual denies the allegations, saying McNulty was not qualified for the promotion and that its diversity initiatives do not allow hiring or promotion decisions based on race, sex, or other protected traits. The EEOC has not made any determination on the merits; the subpoena action is a procedural step to obtain information the agency considers relevant to the investigation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC has authority to investigate allegations of employment discrimination and to issue subpoenas for information it considers relevant to an inquiry. When an employer declines to produce requested documents or testimony, the agency may seek a court order compelling compliance. The subpoena enforcement action against Northwestern Mutual is a procedural mechanism to obtain materials the EEOC asserts are necessary to evaluate the underlying complaint.

 

In its court filing, the EEOC states that the requested information—including documents related to the promotion decision, the company’s DEI initiatives, performance benchmarks, and HR data—falls within the scope of its investigative authority. The agency also argues that interviewing a company representative responsible for DEI strategy is relevant to assessing how those policies functioned during the period at issue. Northwestern Mutual maintains that portions of the request are overly broad and that it has already produced information sufficient to address the specific allegations raised by the complainant.

 

The EEOC has not made a finding regarding whether Northwestern Mutual’s DEI practices violate federal law. The court’s role at this stage is limited to determining whether the subpoena seeks information reasonably relevant to the investigation and whether the employer has provided adequate justification for withholding any of the requested materials. The outcome of the enforcement action will determine the scope of information the EEOC may review as it continues its inquiry.

 

BRIDGE POV
Northwestern Mutual’s response highlights what strong organizations must do in this environment: clearly articulate the purpose and structure of their DEI work, document how decisions are made, and demonstrate that inclusion efforts operate within established anti-discrimination law. When companies maintain disciplined, transparent, opportunity-based DEI practices, they are far better positioned to withstand mischaracterization and political pressure.

 

This moment calls for rigor. Companies must reject the suggestion that DEI itself is suspect and instead reinforce what lawful, process-driven DEI actually s responsibility to uphold fairness, transparency, and consistent standards across the workforce.

 

Strong governance and clear documentation are not defensive moves; they are the foundations of credible leadership. When DEI is grounded in process rather than preference, companies are equipped to lead through scrutiny—not shrink from it.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm DEI’s Purpose in Legal Terms: Clarify internally and externally that DEI efforts focus on fair process, barrier reduction, and equal opportunity—not demographic preference. Ensure this framing appears consistently across policies and communications.
    
2. Tighten Advancement and Evaluation Records: Require detailed, contemporaneous documentation of promotion decisions, candidate qualifications, and evaluation criteria. Strong records prevent misinterpretation and strengthen institutional credibility.
    
3. Embed DEI Governance Within Compliance: Formalize alignment between DEI, Legal, and HR so that program design, language, and practices reflect shared standards. This reduces ambiguity and ensures the organization can respond with clarity if questioned.

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

SHRM Faces Credibility Crisis as Internal Turmoil, Retreat from Equity, and DEI Backlash Undercut Its Role as HR’s Standard-Setter

• 'Entitled,' 'complacent,' and 'sloppy': Inside the workplace tension at the world's largest HR organization 

 

OVERVIEW
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the country’s largest HR membership organization, is facing intensifying scrutiny as internal tensions, a pending discrimination lawsuit, and its retreat from equity-focused language continue to raise questions about its credibility as a standard-setter for the HR profession. Former employees have publicly described a culture marked by fear, instability, and high turnover, while current and past staff allege inconsistent leadership and problematic internal practices.

 

The organization also faces a lawsuit filed by a former senior executive alleging discrimination and retaliation, adding legal pressure to reputational concerns. At the same time, SHRM has moved away from explicit references to “equity” in its public frameworks and programming, prompting backlash from HR professionals who argue the shift undermines the organization’s stated mission to promote fair and inclusive workplaces. Criticism has also grown around SHRM’s decision to elevate voices critical of DEI at its flagship events, which many members say contradicts long-standing HR commitments to nondiscrimination and workplace inclusion.

 

These developments have prompted debate within the HR community about SHRM’s alignment with the needs of modern workplaces and its ability to provide clear, trusted guidance at a time when employers are navigating heightened legal and cultural scrutiny.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The legal scrutiny surrounding SHRM stems from a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by a former senior employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff alleges adverse employment actions based on protected characteristics and asserts that SHRM retaliated after concerns were raised internally. SHRM has denied the allegations. The case is in its early procedural stages, and no court has made findings on the underlying claims.

 

SHRM’s adjustments to its public terminology and programming do not themselves carry legal consequences unless they result in employment actions or policies that implicate federal or state anti-discrimination laws. As a private membership organization, SHRM has broad discretion in shaping its content, events, and professional frameworks.

 

Concerns raised by current and former employees—including descriptions of internal culture challenges and leadership turnover—do not constitute legal violations unless connected to conduct prohibited under employment statutes. Such allegations may provide context in litigation or internal reviews, but they do not, on their own, establish noncompliance.

BRIDGE POV
SHRM’s current challenges underscore a deeper point for employers: HR cannot be disentangled from equity. The profession exists to uphold fair process, ensure consistent treatment, and create conditions in which people can work without discrimination or bias. When organizations responsible for setting HR standards move away from equity commitments or align with political ideologies that contradict those foundational principles, it creates confusion for the field and undermines the credibility of the guidance they provide.

 

For employers, this is a moment to be clear about what HR is—and what it is not. HR is not a political instrument. It is not a vehicle for ideologically driven swings in terminology or practice. Its purpose is grounded in fairness, transparency, procedural integrity, and the elimination of barriers that distort opportunity. When institutions maintain disciplined, documented, opportunity-based DEI practices, they reinforce these fundamentals and reduce the risk of their work being mischaracterized or diminished.

 

Organizations cannot outsource their commitment to equity to external bodies. They must uphold consistent standards internally, regardless of how professional associations reposition themselves or how political narratives shift around them. Credible leadership requires institutions to remain anchored to the core function of HR: ensuring that every employee is treated fairly, evaluated consistently, and given a genuine opportunity to thrive.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Affirm Equity as a Core HR Function; Make explicit in your policies, leadership expectations, and internal communications that equity, fair process, and consistent treatment are foundational to HR—not optional add-ons. Ensure your organization’s standards reflect the professional obligations of HR, independent of political shifts.
    
2. Evaluate Guidance Through Principles, Not Politics: Treat external frameworks—whether from SHRM or other bodies—as reference points, not directives. Adopt guidance only when it aligns with your legal obligations and your institution’s commitment to fairness and inclusion. Do not mirror terminology changes or retreat from equity commitments in response to ideological pressures.
    
3. Strengthen Internal Accountability for Culture and Fairness: Assign clear ownership for maintaining equitable practices across recruitment, evaluation, promotion, and workplace culture. Use documented processes and consistent criteria to ensure decisions reflect your values, not the fluctuating positions of external associations.
    

See also: SHRM’s Inclusion Conference Sparks Uproar After Main Stage Slot for Anti-DEI Activist (Issue 30)

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

Federal DEI Restrictions Spill Into Research and Scientific Exchange as Universities Lose Funding and Conferences are Forced to Self-Censor

• ‘This is censorship.’ Conference requires abstracts to comply with Trump anti-DEI order
• State department to cut 38 universities from research program over DEI policies

 

OVERVIEW

The reach of federal DEI restrictions has expanded into academic research and scientific exchange, affecting both university partnerships and professional conferences. The U.S. State Department has issued new directives removing several universities from its Diplomacy Lab research-partnership program on the basis that their hiring or governance practices incorporate DEI considerations. Institutions notified of their removal were told that continued participation conflicts with the Department’s updated criteria for partner eligibility.
 

At the same time, a major U.S. scientific conference has instructed presenters to exclude references to DEI in submitted abstracts, citing the need to comply with federal executive-branch guidance affecting government-supported activities. Organizers said the change was necessary to avoid jeopardizing federal alignment, prompting concerns among researchers that scientific content is being shaped by political constraints rather than disciplinary standards.
 

Together, these developments signal that federal DEI restrictions are now influencing not only workforce policy and educational access but also research collaboration, scientific communication, and the norms governing academic participation.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The State Department has broad discretion to determine which universities may participate in the Diplomacy Lab program. These decisions are programmatic rather than regulatory; they do not require formal rulemaking and do not constitute legal penalties. Removing institutions from the partnership reflects internal eligibility criteria set by the Department in alignment with current executive-branch priorities.
 

The scientific conference’s decision to restrict DEI-related content in abstract submissions is not the result of a legal mandate. Federal executive orders and guidance can influence how organizations manage activities connected to federal partnerships or funding, but independent scientific bodies retain authority over their own submission standards. The change reflects institutional risk-management choices made in response to federal policy signals.
 

Neither development alters federal statutes governing research, academic freedom, or scientific communication. Instead, both illustrate how executive-branch interpretations and funding-related expectations can shape institutional governance even in the absence of formal regulatory changes.

 

BRIDGE POV
The extension of federal DEI restrictions into research partnerships and scientific convenings highlights a deeper risk: when political directives begin shaping academic and scientific norms, institutions must decide whether to follow those signals or remain grounded in the principles that define their fields. Research integrity, academic freedom, and open scientific exchange cannot hinge on fluctuating ideological agendas.
 

Universities and scientific organizations have long operated within global norms that treat inclusion, access, and nondiscrimination as essential to knowledge production. When institutions self-censor or alter participation criteria in response to political pressure—even without legal compulsion—they risk normalizing constraints that undermine those commitments. The responsibility in this moment is not to mirror federal rhetoric but to reinforce the values that make research and scientific collaboration credible in the first place.

 

Scientific and academic bodies play a stabilizing role in periods of political volatility. Their legitimacy depends on independence, transparency, and adherence to established professional and ethical standards, not on aligning with shifting executive-branch preferences. Institutions that hold their ground protect not only their own credibility but the integrity of global research ecosystems.

 

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Reaffirm Academic and Scientific Independence: Publicly and internally articulate that research and scientific governance are grounded in established professional standards, not political directives. Ensure leadership communicates this consistently to faculty, researchers, and partners.
    
2. Avoid Over-Correction in Compliance Decisions: When assessing federal guidance or funding implications, distinguish between what is legally required and what is risk-avoidant overreach. Document the basis for compliance actions to prevent unnecessary restrictions on academic content or scientific exchange.
    
3. Anchor DEI in Research Ethics, Not Politics: Embed inclusion, access, and nondiscrimination within institutional research-ethics frameworks and partnership agreements. This provides a stable foundation that does not shift with political cycles and helps maintain credibility with global collaborators.