| | WEEKLY ISSUE 81 | September 11, 2026 |
|
|
|
|---|
|
Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity. |
|
|---|
|
SPECIAL SECTION
MIDTERM WATCH - NEW
IN THIS ISSUE
ALSO INCLUDED |
|
|
|---|
|
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS | For continued reference these are the EOs targeting DEI and LGBTQ+ protections that have been issued:
We will continue to monitor activities that relate to these EOs either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|---|
|
9.11 TIME STOOD STILL: 25 YEARS LATER. |
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
Twenty-five years ago today, I witnessed the unspeakable horrors unfold from my window just five blocks away from the World Trade Center. Shock, sadness and uncertainty were the prevailing sentiments for those of us who lived in the “red zone.”
It was a day when we experienced unimaginable evil and, at the same time, the very best in people. Strangers became neighbors. The differences that might have kept us apart the week before suddenly disappeared. We were a community that had been attacked. But despite the anguish we all felt, we became a community that came together in a way I had never experienced before and have never forgotten.
My street became a staging area for the FDNY, and we became their supporters. For six weeks, I worked at Ground Zero alongside others in my community, loading water and sandwiches onto the backs of fire trucks delivering it to the recovery workers. We sorted through socks that seemed to appear out of nowhere, making sure they were packaged and uncontaminated. We cooked in restaurant kitchens, paying close attention to what food the recovery workers needed.
And as the rest of the country gradually began to return to their lives, we remained united in a moment in time.
Now, twenty-five years later, America feels painfully far from that sense of common purpose. We are more divided and divisive. Differences have been weaponized rather than valued. Progress toward greater inclusion is being challenged, and civil rights and protections are being rolled back.
It is one of the reasons I am so proud to lead BRIDGE and this extraordinary community. At a moment when forces are working to divide us, our role is to bring people and institutions together around a shared commitment to inclusion and a belief in the strength that comes from it.
FORWARD is part of that work. It exists to ensure leaders understand the legal, political and reputational developments shaping inclusion so they can make informed, credible decisions about how to lead through them. BRIDGE exists because being informed is only the beginning. We also have a responsibility to keep driving together, toward something better.
Today, I remember those we lost, those who ran toward danger, those who worked for months in the aftermath and the community that showed me what it means to show up for one another.
Twenty-five years later, I still believe in that possibility.
And I still believe it is worth fighting for. | |
|
|---|
With the November midterm elections approaching, BRIDGE FORWARD is adding MIDTERM WATCH to track legal, policy and political developments to help businesses support informed and responsible civic engagement. |
|
|---|
| | | | | |
OVERVIEWA dispute over the federal government's expanded voter-verification system has reached the Supreme Court less than two months before the November 3 midterm elections.
In 2025, the Department of Homeland Security expanded its Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system to allow state election officials to conduct bulk searches of voter records using Social Security information to verify citizenship. The system had previously been used primarily to verify citizenship and immigration status for government benefits and other purposes.
On June 22, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan vacated the expanded system, finding that its use of Social Security information violated federal law. The court also found that some citizenship information incorporated into the system was inaccurate and had resulted in U.S. citizens being incorrectly identified as noncitizens. The Trump administration appealed.
On September 4, a divided D.C. Circuit declined to suspend the district court's ruling while the appeal proceeded. On September 8, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the ruling, arguing that it prevents the federal government from using Social Security information to respond to state requests to verify voter citizenship. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the administration's request.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIESDirect Employees to Official Registration Information: Ensure voter-registration resources direct employees to current state and local election authorities to verify registration status, eligibility requirements and applicable deadlines.
Prepare for Changes in Voter Verification Procedures: Organizations providing nonpartisan voter education or civic engagement resources should be prepared to update guidance as the SAVE litigation proceeds and states determine how any changes affect voter-registration verification.
Encourage Employees to Verify Registration Early: As voter-registration deadlines approach, encourage employees who plan to vote to confirm their registration status early through official state or local election resources and address any discrepancies through the processes available in their jurisdiction.
| | | | | |
|
|---|
| | | | | |
OVERVIEWPublic universities are renaming and reorganizing DEI offices in response to state restrictions, while new payroll data suggest the staffing impact has been more limited.
Since 2023, state lawmakers have introduced more than 150 bills targeting campus diversity programs, with 34 bills in 19 states becoming law. Universities have responded by eliminating or reorganizing DEI offices and changing job titles and departmental names.
A September 7 analysis by The Economist found that at Ohio State University, nearly four in five employees previously in diversity-related roles remained on the payroll with new titles or in new departments, while staffing costs for the group declined 14%. The University of North Carolina system showed a similar pattern, with little change in headcount and a 5% decline in salaries following changes to its DEI policy.
The payroll data do not establish whether reassigned employees continue performing the same DEI-related work.Other universities have made deeper staffing reductions, including the University of Texas at Austin, which reported laying off 49 employees following passage of Texas Senate Bill 17.
LEGAL INTERPRETATIONAnti-DEI laws differ significantly by state, but some extend beyond office names and organizational structures to the functions universities continue to perform. Ohio law, for example, prohibits replacing a DEI office or position with one under a different designation if it serves the “same or similar purposes” or uses “same or similar means.” As a result, compliance turns not only on how a position is labeled, but on the work being performed.
Continued employment of former DEI staff does not itself establish noncompliance. However, where state law prohibits continuation of DEI functions, universities must be able to demonstrate that reorganized offices and reassigned employees are operating within those restrictions. Changing a title or reporting structure alone would not satisfy a law that also prohibits continuation of the underlying function.
States are also developing mechanisms to enforce these restrictions. Texas has established an ombudsman with authority to investigate compliance, while Ohio lawmakers have considered additional requirements addressing whether reassigned DEI employees continue performing substantially similar work. These mechanisms allow states to examine compliance beyond organizational charts and job titles.
BRIDGE POVThe persistence of this work reflects a reality businesses already understand: inclusion remains valuable even when the language around it becomes politically or legally constrained. Organizations have spent years building capabilities to better understand consumers, strengthen workplace culture, identify barriers and compete for talent. Those business needs have not disappeared.
Companies are therefore finding ways to adapt structures, language and approaches so they can continue advancing the underlying work within current legal requirements. The lesson is not that organizations should evade the law. It is that compliance does not require abandoning the business capabilities that inclusion was designed to strengthen.
ACTIONABLE STRATEGIESSeparate the Work from the Terminology: Identify the business capabilities currently housed within DEI programs, including talent development, employee engagement, consumer insight and cultural competency, and determine how they can continue within applicable legal requirements.
Review Substance, Not Just Structure: Assess what teams and programs actually do, not simply what they are called. Renaming an initiative does not resolve legal risk if the underlying activity is prohibited, while eliminating DEI terminology does not necessarily require eliminating lawful inclusion-related work.
Preserve the Business Case: Ensure decisions about inclusion programs consider both legal requirements and the business objectives those programs were created to support. Compliance decisions should be grounded in what the law actually requires rather than assuming that every inclusion-related practice must be eliminated.
See also: Mississippi Federal Court Blocks DEI Ban; Alabama Court Allows It to Stand (Issue 26); Broad Opposition Emerges to ABA Plan to Repeal Law School Diversity Standard (Issue 29); Universities Diverge on DEI as Regulatory Pressure Mounts (Issue 29); Students and Professors Push Back — Appeal Seeks to Block Alabama's Ban on Campus DEI Programs (Issue 43); Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Florida's Higher Education Classroom Censorship Law (Issue 73) | | | | | |
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
On September 3, the Treasury Department and IRS proposed regulations that would deny federal tax-exempt status to private schools and colleges that discriminate based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin, including through admissions, scholarships and other school-administered programs. The agencies estimate that as many as 18,000 private educational institutions could be affected. If finalized, the rule would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.
The proposal relies in part on the Supreme Court's 1983 Bob Jones University v. United States decision, which upheld the IRS's authority to deny tax-exempt status to a university that prohibited interracial dating and marriage. The proposed regulations would also eliminate existing provisions permitting certain race-conscious programs designed to promote nondiscrimination, while continuing to permit race-neutral criteria such as income, geography, first-generation status and individual hardship.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said describing race-based preferences as “equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing” would not change their treatment under the proposed rule. The proposal remains subject to public comment and has already drawn opposition from higher-education groups, including the American Association of University Professors.
See also: Trump Targets DEI in Higher Education Through Collateral Attacks on Accreditation and Universities' Tax-Exempt Status (Issue 10); Harvard Wins Ruling Blocking Unprecedented Funding Freeze (Issue 28); Department of Justice Settles Lawsuits Filed by Students for Fair Admissions Against West Point and the Air Force Academy (Issue 25); Anti-Affirmative Action Group Targets Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Scholarship (Issue 59); Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Administration Antisemitism Lawsuit Against Harvard (Issue 78) | | | | | |
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
On September 3, 18 governors sent a joint letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz opposing recent federal actions they say could weaken protections for people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The governors warned that a narrower interpretation could affect access to community-based services, education and employment and increase the risk of unnecessary institutionalization.
The letter responds to a June 18 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion adopting a narrower interpretation of federal obligations under the Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision, followed by DOJ’s July decision to stop relying on its 2011 Olmstead guidance. The governors said they “strongly oppose any federal actions that would weaken protections against unnecessary segregation or diminish the rights of people with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated settings appropriate to meet their needs, consistent with established Olmstead precedent.”
See also: Texas-Led Coalition Challenges Federal Disability Integration Requirements Under Section 504 (Issue 50); DOJ Memo Challenges Community Living Rights of People with Disabilities, Raising Fear of Return to Forced Institutionalization (Issue 70); Members of Congress Call on DOJ to Withdraw Olmstead Opinion (Issue 75); DOJ Moves to Vacate ADA Win in Florida, Rolling Back Protections for Disabled Children (Issue 78) | | | | | |
|
|---|
|
WORKFORCE & EMPLOYMENT | | | | | | |
On September 8, the EEOC filed a federal court action to enforce an administrative subpoena against the City and County of San Francisco as part of an investigation into a former employee’s charge of race and sex discrimination under Title VII. The charge alleges disparate treatment and constructive discharge, including claims that mandatory DEI trainings were themselves discriminatory.
The subpoena seeks information about employee attendance at the trainings, complaints related to those sessions and the trainer who conducted them. After the city did not produce the requested records, the EEOC asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to compel compliance so the agency can complete its investigation. In announcing the action, the EEOC also directed employers to its guidance on DEI-related discrimination in the workplace.
See also: EEOC Drops Bid to Press Penn for Jewish Employee Information (Issue 76); EEOC Votes to Propose Rescission of EEO-1 Component 1 (Issue 75); Union and Prison Officers Sue EEOC Over Indefinite Freeze of Federal-Sector Class Complaints (Issue 76) | | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
| | | | | |
On August 31, a Fifth Circuit panel heard arguments over a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions of Mississippi House Bill 1193, which prohibits specified “divisive concepts” and diversity training in public schools and universities. The challengers argue that the law’s broad definition of diversity training, when read together with its list of prohibited concepts, could restrict classroom discussion of subjects involving race and sex. Mississippi maintains that the law prohibits endorsement of specified concepts, not teaching about race-related subjects generally.
The appeal has drawn additional scrutiny after U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate confirmed that a law clerk used AI to draft an early version of a temporary restraining order that was mistakenly docketed without judicial review and contained significant errors. The order was replaced, but Mississippi contends that the corrected version still cites a nonexistent case. The state has asked the Fifth Circuit to vacate the preliminary injunction and reassign the case to another judge, while the challengers are asking the court to leave the injunction in place.
See also: Mississippi Federal Court Blocks DEI Ban; Alabama Court Allows It to Stand (Issue 26); Students and Professors Push Back — Appeal Seeks to Block Alabama's Ban on Campus DEI Programs (Issue 43); Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Florida's Higher Education Classroom Censorship Law (Issue 73); Universities Rebrand DEI Offices Amid Legislative Crackdown, but Staffing Impact Remains Limited (Issue 80) | | | | | |
| COMMUNITY EVENTS | BRIDGE invites everyone to join for our monthly Community Calls which take place on the last Thursday of every month, gathering inclusion, marketing, and business leaders committed to driving systemic change within our organizations and the industry at large.
In celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, our September Community Call: Beyond the World Cup will explore how Latino soccer fandom represents one of the most powerful intersections of culture and growth.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup put the influence of Latino fans on full display, but the opportunity for brands extends far beyond a single tournament. Join us for a conversation with Jessica Ricaurte, CRO, Adsmovil as we explore what the World Cup revealed about culture, language and Latino consumer behavior, why brands don't need to own the game to earn a role in the culture surrounding it, and what it takes to move from a moment-in-time activation to a year-round Latino soccer strategy.
When: Thursday, Sept 24th, 12-1pm ET | | |
|
|
|---|
ABOUT BRIDGE FORWARD | | | | | | | Led by BRIDGE, FORWARD is a weekly leadership briefing that distills the most consequential legal, political, and reputational developments shaping DEI and inclusive growth. Each issue provides legal interpretation, BRIDGE’s point of view, and actionable strategies to help leaders safeguard trust, anticipate risk and make credible value-based decisions in a volatile environment.
Who it’s for: CMOs, CCOs, Chief DEI Officers, GCs, Heads of Risk, CHROs, and senior leaders across DEI, marketing, brand, policy, and legal functions. FOR PAST ISSUES OF BRIDGE FORWARD WEEKLY GUIDANCE PLEASE VISIT HERE. *These BRIDGE FORWARD updates should not be construed as legal advice or counsel. They are for educational and instructive purposes only, to aid our understanding about how best to actively continue our mission in response to this moment. | | | | | |
|
|
|
|---|
 | |
|  | |
| |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
| | 1276 Auto Park Way Suite D, PMB 183, Escondido, CA 92029 |
| This email was sent to {{ contact.EMAIL }} |
| You've received it because you've subscribed to our newsletter. |
| | |
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
