EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

State Department Expands Mexico City Policy Scope, Blocking Aid Over "Gender Ideology" and DEI  

• Trump administration to block aid from subsidizing DEI and trans rights overseas 

OVERVIEW

On January 27, 2026, the U.S. State Department published final rules expanding the scope of the Mexico City Policy, significantly broadening restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance. The Mexico City Policy, first introduced in 1984, conditions U.S. foreign aid on recipient organizations certifying that they do not perform or promote abortion services using non-U.S. funds.

The January 2026 expansion extends those conditions beyond abortion-related activities to include organizations that promote what the administration defines as “gender ideology” or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The revised policy applies to approximately $30 billion in non-military U.S. foreign assistance, including global health, humanitarian, and development funding administered by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Under the expanded framework, organizations seeking covered U.S. assistance must certify compliance with the new restrictions as a condition of funding eligibility. Organizations that decline to certify remain legally permitted to operate but are ineligible for covered funds.

The policy change drew condemnation from international aid organizations, public health groups, and human rights advocates, who warned that the expanded restrictions could disrupt healthcare delivery, humanitarian relief, and development programs, particularly those serving women and LGBTQ+ populations.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Mexico City Policy operates through executive authority governing the terms and conditions of U.S. foreign assistance rather than through statute. Its expansion does not amend federal civil rights law or foreign assistance statutes, but instead conditions eligibility for covered U.S. funding on recipient certifications, making compliance a prerequisite for participation in designated programs.

The Supreme Court has upheld the federal government’s authority to attach conditions to funding, including in Rust v. Sullivan, which recognized that the government may define the scope of programs it funds without regulating private conduct outside those programs. Organizations remain legally permitted to engage in restricted activities but may not do so while receiving covered assistance.

The January 2026 expansion introduces new legal considerations related to administrative implementation and definitional clarity. Because the policy extends beyond abortion-related activities to concepts such as “gender ideology” and DEI, any challenges would likely focus on how those terms are defined and applied, rather than on the legality of DEI or gender-related programming itself.

BRIDGE POV

The expansion of the Mexico City Policy underscores how executive authority over federal funding can be used to reshape operating conditions without changing underlying law. While the policy does not prohibit DEI or gender-related programming, it materially alters the risk and compliance landscape for organizations that rely on U.S. foreign assistance.

Funding conditions are being used as a lever to enforce policy preferences across a widening set of activities, increasing the importance of clarity, documentation, and disciplined decision-making. Organizations that conflate funding eligibility with legality risk overcorrecting in ways that are neither required nor strategically sound.

Leaders must distinguish between what the government can condition, what the law permits, and what their institutions are prepared to defend operationally and reputationally.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Separate Funding Eligibility from Program Legality: Ensure leadership teams clearly distinguish between activities that are legally permissible and those that may affect eligibility for specific federal funds. Avoid broad program withdrawals driven by funding conditions alone.
   
   
2. Audit Certification Exposure and Dependencies: Identify where certification requirements attach, which programs are affected, and what proportion of operations depend on covered U.S. assistance. Decisions should be based on concrete exposure, not generalized risk assumptions
   
   

3. Align Governance Before External Pressure Increases: Establish a shared executive position on compliance, risk tolerance, and continuity of mission-critical programs. Alignment across legal, compliance, and leadership functions reduces reactive decision-making when scrutiny intensifies.
   
   

See also: State Department Moves to Classify DEI as a “Human Rights Violation,” Rewriting Global Rights Standards Through an Ideological Lens (Issue 40)

WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT

ICE Explores Commercial Surveillance Data as Tech Workers Demand Corporate Accountability

• ICE Issues RFI For 'Ad Tech Compliant' Data 

• FY26_RFI-Big Data & Ad Tech 

• Tech workers urge CEOs to condemn ICE 

• Bay Area tech workers ask CEOs to cancel ICE contracts 
• Tech demands ICE out of our cities 

OVERVIEW

On January 24, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), through Homeland Security Investigations, issued a Request for Information (RFI) as market research seeking information from vendors on “commercial Big Data and Ad Tech” products. The RFI states that ICE is seeking information to better understand how commercially available Big Data and advertising-technology products could support investigative activities.

Following the RFI, tech workers organized public pressure campaigns urging corporate leaders to take positions on ICE engagement. One effort, “Tech Demands ICE Out of Our Cities,” organized by Anne Diemer, a former Stripe employee and human resources consultant, circulated an open letter calling on chief executives to take three specific actions: contact the White House to demand ICE withdraw from cities, cancel existing company contracts with ICE, and publicly oppose what the campaign characterizes as ICE violence.

The pushback reflects growing employee-led scrutiny of corporate relationships with federal law enforcement agencies, particularly where commercial data, surveillance technologies, or government contracts are involved.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

ICE’s January 24, 2026 Request for Information seeks information about commercially available data products that could support investigative activities. While the RFI itself does not authorize data collection or use, it sits within an ongoing legal debate over when government access to commercially sourced personal data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

In Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court held that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in extensive historical cell-site location information, and that government access to such data generally requires a warrant. That decision has shaped scrutiny of law enforcement reliance on third-party data, particularly where location, tracking, or behavioral information is involved.

Congress has also considered statutory limits on government purchases of personal data from data brokers. In the 118th Congress, the House passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which would require federal agencies to obtain court authorization before acquiring certain categories of personal information, though the measure has not been enacted.

Employee-led campaigns urging companies to sever or limit engagement with ICE do not impose legal obligations on employers, but they intersect with governance, contractual decision-making, and workforce relations for companies that provide data, technology, or services to government agencies.

BRIDGE POV

ICE’s request to explore the use of commercial surveillance and advertising data is a serious overreach. It represents a breach of privacy, civil liberties and a violation of public trust. Turning data collected for advertising and consumer targeting into a tool for government enforcement collapses the boundary between commercial tracking and state surveillance.

The reaction from tech workers reflects how stark this feels. Employees are responding to the normalization of surveillance through private data markets and the use of that surveillance to support enforcement practices they believe cause real harm. The demands directed at corporate leaders are direct. Companies should not be enabling government access to personal data in ways that bypass accountability, consent, and basic expectations of restraint.

This raises a responsibility question for leadership. When companies provide data, tools, or infrastructure that expand the government’s ability to monitor and track people, they are making an affirmative choice. This is not abstract risk management. It is about whether there are limits on how personal data is used and whether companies are willing to draw those limits when public trust and fundamental rights are at stake.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Set Explicit Limits on Government Use of Commercial Data: Define, in writing, what categories of data your company will not sell, license, or make accessible for law enforcement or immigration enforcement purposes, regardless of legality. Clear internal boundaries prevent ad hoc decisions driven by pressure or opportunity.
   
   
2. Require Executive Review for High-Risk Government Engagements: Elevate any request involving surveillance, tracking, or behavioral data to the executive level. These decisions should not be delegated to sales, procurement, or technical teams. Accountability must sit with leadership.
3. Be Clear with Employees About Where the Company Draws the Line: Silence fuels mistrust. Communicate plainly about whether the company will engage with agencies like ICE, under what conditions, and where it will refuse to participate. Clarity reduces internal conflict and avoids reactive decision-making after public exposure.