Trump DEI Orders: Contractor, EEOC, and Court Actions

President Donald Trump’s DEI executive orders, signed in the first days of his second term, shut down diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across the federal government, revoked a 1965 affirmative action mandate for federal contractors, and set the Justice Department and EEOC loose on private employers, universities, and grant recipients accused of discriminatory DEI practices. The rules took effect immediately for federal workers, gave contractors a 90-day transition, and have since expanded through additional orders and enforcement actions. Much of the legal fight is still unresolved.

What the January 2025 Orders Do

Trump signed two foundational orders in his first two days back in office.

Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” was signed January 20, 2025. It ordered every federal agency to close its DEI and DEIA offices, including Chief Diversity Officer roles, within 60 days. Agencies had to end equity action plans, cancel DEI-related training, and drop DEI performance requirements for employees, contractors, and grantees. The order revoked Biden-era Executive Orders 13985 and 14091, which had built the agency equity infrastructure.¹

Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” was signed the next day and reached beyond the government itself. It revoked Executive Order 11246, the 1965 directive that had required federal contractors to maintain affirmative action plans for nearly six decades, giving contractors 90 days to transition. The order told the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to stop promoting diversity goals and workforce balancing. It also imposed a new certification: federal contractors and grant recipients must certify they do not operate DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and that certification is deemed “material” to payment decisions under the False Claims Act.² That materiality label is what exposes contractors to treble damages and whistleblower suits.

A companion order, Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” redefined “sex” in federal policy as an “immutable biological classification” and blocked federal funds from being used to promote what it calls “gender ideology.”³

What the Orders Don’t Directly Change

The orders are executive action, not new statutes. Title VII, Title VI, and the other federal anti-discrimination laws are unchanged. Private plaintiffs can still bring disparate-impact discrimination claims in court even after a later Trump order told federal agencies to stop pursuing them.⁴ Courts have also blocked or narrowed several provisions, so what’s on paper in the orders is not the same as what is currently being enforced.

Impact on Federal Workers

The Office of Personnel Management moved on January 22, 2025, directing agencies to put every DEI office staffer on paid administrative leave by 5:00 p.m. that day and pull all public-facing DEI webpages by the same deadline.⁵ Agencies had to list every DEI office and worker as they existed on Election Day by the next day, and to plan reductions in force by January 30. Federal workers were instructed to report any DEI programs that had been renamed, with warnings of “adverse consequences” for staying silent longer than 10 days.

Terminations followed at OPM, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Federal Aviation Administration, the CDC, the NIH, and the Department of Labor. According to NPR, many of the people targeted were not in DEI roles at the time but had worked on such programs under the Biden administration or were associated with those concepts by the current administration. The entire Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at DHS received a termination notice in March 2025.⁶

Federal Contractors and the False Claims Act

For contractors, the biggest change is the new certification. Because EO 14173 makes the DEI compliance certification “material” to payment, a contractor found to have certified falsely can be sued under the False Claims Act, which carries treble damages and per-claim penalties. Whistleblowers can bring those suits.

The DOJ built out that theory in a formal program. On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi told the Civil Rights Division to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize” DEI preferences in the private sector and at federally funded schools.⁷ On May 19, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative,” which uses the False Claims Act against federal funding recipients the DOJ believes violate civil rights laws through DEI programs and encourages whistleblower suits.⁸

EO 14173 also directed the Attorney General to identify, within 120 days, “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” among publicly traded corporations, large nonprofits, foundations with assets over $500 million, bar and medical associations, and universities with endowments over $1 billion, with each agency identifying up to nine potential civil compliance investigations.²

Enforcement Actions So Far

The first major settlement came in April 2026, when IBM paid $17 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that it certified compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements while running compensation practices, interview slates, demographic goals, and training programs the government said discriminated by race, color, national origin, or sex.⁹

On June 4, 2026, the DOJ opened investigations into race-conscious admissions at 15 medical schools, following earlier findings that UCLA and Yale had “illegally used race in medical school admissions” in violation of Title VI. The 15 schools were not publicly named.¹⁰ The DOJ also issued a civil investigative demand to Harvard probing potential False Claims Act violations over compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.¹¹ The DOJ has also opened investigations across the automotive, defense, pharmaceutical, technology, telecommunications, and utility sectors.¹²

The EEOC’s Enforcement Track

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, has run a parallel effort. In February 2026, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action against Nike in federal court to investigate whether the company engaged in a “pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white employees, applicants and training program participants.” The investigation covers hiring, promotions, layoffs, internships, and 16 specific mentoring and development programs the EEOC described as “race restricted,” with records requested back to 2018.¹³ Nike called the action a “surprising and unusual escalation” and said its programs are lawful.¹⁴

On March 17, 2025, Lucas sent letters to 20 major law firms — including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Simpson Thacher, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale — asking for detailed information about DEI hiring, promotion, training, and travel practices.¹⁵ Nine firms reached agreements with the administration between late March and mid-April 2025 that committed them to nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services supporting administration initiatives. On April 11, 2025, Trump announced the EEOC had withdrawn the letters. Four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — sued and won. One court found “unconstitutional retaliation” against Perkins Coie; another said the orders were intended “to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like.”¹⁶ In a February 2026 stipulation of dismissal, the EEOC acknowledged that responding to the original letters had been voluntary and considered the matter closed.¹⁷

Later Executive Orders and Policy Moves

The campaign kept expanding through 2025 and 2026.

Disparate-impact liability (April 23, 2025): “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” told agencies to stop enforcing rules based on disparate-impact theory and directed the Attorney General to move toward repealing Title VI implementing regulations that use it. The order called disparate-impact liability “wholly inconsistent with the Constitution.” Private plaintiffs can still bring these claims in court.¹⁸⁴
Federal contractor DEI clause (March 26, 2026): A new order requires all federal contracts of $15,000 or more to include a clause prohibiting “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” Agencies had until April 27, 2026, to add the clauses to new contracts and until July 24, 2026, to add them to existing ones.¹⁹
EEO-1 reporting rescission (May 2026): The EEOC proposed to OMB that the EEO-1 workforce demographic reporting framework be eliminated. The proposal is under OMB review, and existing reporting obligations remain in effect during rulemaking.²⁰
EEOC enforcement plan (June 2026): Chair Lucas issued a National Enforcement Plan for fiscal years 2025–2029 naming DEI practices — aspirational goals, diversity slates, limited-access training, and diversity statements — as enforcement priorities.²¹

Impact on Schools and Universities

On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent a “Dear Colleague” letter warning higher education institutions they could lose federal funding for continuing DEI programs, and requiring states and school districts to sign a certification under threat of funding termination and criminal penalty.²² A federal court in Maryland blocked the letter in April 2025 for violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and the department dropped its appeal in January 2026.²³

The broader push continues. The Department of Education stripped race-based criteria from the McNair grants program and secured agreements from 31 colleges to sever ties with The PhD Project. The DOJ investigated scholarships at Indiana University and diversity-based retention goals at the Louisiana Board of Regents.²⁴ In May 2026, the American Bar Association repealed Standard 206, which had required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to student-body diversity.²¹ Even without a valid Dear Colleague letter, Inside Higher Ed reports that many institutions have self-censored, ending race-based scholarships, cutting DEI language from websites, laying off staff, and closing minority support centers.

Where the Court Fights Stand

The orders have drawn lawsuits from multiple directions, with results that leave the legal landscape unsettled.

AAUP v. Trump

A coalition led by the American Association of University Professors, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, and the City of Baltimore sued in Maryland federal court on February 3, 2025. The district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on February 21, 2025, finding the orders unconstitutionally vague and inconsistent with First Amendment principles.²⁵ The Fourth Circuit stayed that injunction in March 2025 and, on February 6, 2026, vacated it, holding the facial challenges unlikely to succeed. The court said the termination provision is a policy instruction to federal employees rather than a regulation of private conduct, that the certification requirement does not violate free speech rights, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the enforcement threat provision.²⁶ The same plaintiffs filed a fresh lawsuit in April 2026 targeting the March 2026 contractor order.²⁷

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump

A district court in the Northern District of Illinois issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the certification provision of EO 14173. The Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on January 30, 2026, but had not ruled as of June 2026. Judge David Hamilton expressed frustration with the government’s failure to define “unlawful DEI”; Chief Judge Michael Brennan flagged whether the provision regulates speech or conduct as the question dividing lower courts.²⁸

Other Pending Cases

National Urban League v. Trump: Filed in February 2025 in D.C. district court, raising First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and APA claims. A preliminary injunction was denied in May 2025, and the government’s motion to dismiss is pending. An amended complaint was filed in June 2025.²⁹
San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump: A Northern District of California judge partially blocked the equity termination and gender-related provisions in June 2025, finding likely violations of equal protection, free speech, due process, and separation of powers. The Ninth Circuit appeal is stayed pending related cases.³⁰³¹
King County v. Turner: Cities and counties challenged the administration’s conditions on federal grants. The Ninth Circuit heard argument on February 9, 2026, with one judge expressing skepticism about the government’s reading of Title VI.³²

Legislation to Make It Permanent

Congressional Republicans have moved to codify the executive branch’s approach. The “Dismantle DEI Act of 2025,” introduced by Senator Eric Schmitt and Representative Michael Cloud on February 4, 2025, would lock in the ban on federal funding for DEI offices, training, grants, and programs and create a private right of action for individuals to sue over violations.³³ A House companion, the “DEI to DIE Act” (H.R. 800), was introduced by Representative Cory Mills on January 28, 2025, with similar provisions.³⁴ Both bills have been referred to committee and have not advanced.

1
The White House. Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing
2
The White House. Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
3
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. DEI Under Siege
4
Duane Morris LLP. Executive Order Rejects Disparate Impact Theory
5
PBS NewsHour. Trump Administration Moves to Begin Cutting All Federal DEI Staff
6
NPR. Trump DEI Federal Employees Firing
7
ESG Dive. Trump Orders Agencies to Target Private Sector DEI
8
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Establishes Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
9
Ropes & Gray LLP. DOJ Announces First DEI False Claims Act Settlement
10
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Expands Admissions Investigations to 15 Additional Medical Schools
11
Sidley Austin LLP. DOJ Launches Initiative Leveraging the False Claims Act to Target DEI Programs
12
Mayer Brown. DOJ Pursues DEI Investigations of Federal Contractors
13
EEOC. EEOC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Nike
14
CNN. Nike Probe Alleged Discrimination White Employees
15
EEOC. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Sends Letters to 20 Law Firms Requesting Information About DEI
16
House Judiciary Committee Democrats. Raskin, Blumenthal, Scott Letter to EEOC
17
ESG Dive. EEOC Law Firms End Lawsuit DEI Practices
18
The White House. Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy
19
National Women’s Law Center. The March 26 Executive Order on Federal Contractors and DEI
20
Morgan Lewis. EEOC Proposes Rescinding Employer Data Reporting Requirements
21
Gibson Dunn. DEI Task Force Update
22
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Federal Guidance Regarding DEI
23
American Federation of Teachers. Major Victory for Public Education: Trump Administration Abandons Appeal of Dear Colleague Letter
24
Inside Higher Ed. ED’s DEI Guidance Is Dead, but Trump’s Crackdown Isn’t
25
AAUP. AAUP Case Challenging Trump Administration’s Executive Orders
26
CalChamber HR Watchdog. Fourth Circuit Court Vacates Injunction Against DEI Executive Orders
27
Higher Ed Dive. Higher Education Groups Challenge Trump’s Latest Anti-DEI Order
28
Ogletree Deakins. Still No Answers: Seventh Circuit Oral Argument Leaves DEI Questions Unresolved
29
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. National Urban League v. Trump
30
Littler Mendelson. Federal Court Partially Blocks Enforcement of Parts of Executive Orders on DEI and Gender
31
Advancing DEI Meltzer Center. San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump – Circuit
32
Courthouse News Service. Trump Admin Asks Ninth Circuit to Lift Block on Grant Conditions
33
U.S. Congress. S.382 – Dismantle DEI Act
34
U.S. Congress. H.R.800 – DEI to DIE Act