DEIA: Federal Reversal, State Laws, and Key Litigation

DEIA — Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility — is a policy framework that federal agencies, universities, and private employers adopted to address barriers facing historically excluded groups, with the “A” adding an explicit focus on people with disabilities. Under federal policy and law, DEIA now sits at the center of a sharp reversal: the Biden administration built it into the federal workforce through Executive Order 14035 in 2021; the Trump administration revoked that order on day one of its second term and has since directed enforcement against DEI programs in government, in the contractor system, at universities, and in private employment. Roughly 30 state laws restrict DEI in higher education, and the courts have begun sorting out what survives.

What DEIA Means

Diversity refers to representation across identities including race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, and socioeconomic background.¹ Equity looks past equal treatment to address barriers that disproportionately harm marginalized groups. Inclusion is the effort to ensure diverse individuals can fully participate in decision-making, not merely be present.²

Accessibility is what distinguishes DEIA from the more familiar DEI. Executive Order 14035 defined it as “the design, construction, development, and maintenance of facilities, information and communication technology, programs, and services so that all people, including people with disabilities, can fully and independently use them.”³ The American Association of People with Disabilities has argued that keeping accessibility inside the broader framework is necessary because disability inclusion requires specific accommodations — ASL interpretation, Section 508 compliance for electronic content, physical modifications — that general diversity programs do not automatically deliver, but risky because political pressure on “DEIA” can sweep up accessibility work built on longstanding statutes.⁴

How DEIA Became Federal Policy

President Biden signed Executive Order 14035 on June 25, 2021, making DEIA a priority across the federal workforce. The order directed the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget to issue a government-wide plan within 150 days, and required each agency to conduct workforce assessments, develop strategic DEIA plans, and submit annual progress reports.³

Agencies were told to use demographic data in reviewing hiring, promotion, and pay decisions while protecting employee privacy, to expand paid internships, to build partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and similar institutions, and to consider creating Chief Diversity Officer positions. Training programs were to cover implicit bias, systemic racism, and workplace harassment. The government-wide plan, released in November 2021, added pay equity, opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals, and equitable health benefits for LGBTQI+ employees; agency strategic plans were due by March 23, 2022.⁵

The Trump Administration’s Reversal

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” directing the termination of all DEI and DEIA offices, positions, equity action plans, and related grants and contracts across the federal government within 60 days. The order also revoked Executive Order 14035.⁶

The following day, a second order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” revoked Executive Order 11246, which had required affirmative action by federal contractors since 1965, and directed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to stop promoting diversity or affirmative action. Contractors were given a 90-day transition period. The order also directed the Attorney General to produce, within 120 days, a strategic enforcement plan targeting “egregious” DEI practices in the private sector, and instructed each federal agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large nonprofits, foundations with assets above $500 million, and universities with endowments above $1 billion.⁷

Impact on the Federal Workforce

OPM Acting Director Charles Ezell moved on January 21, 2025, instructing agencies to notify DEIA staff of office closures by the next day, place those employees on paid administrative leave, and pull public-facing DEIA materials. Agencies had to submit lists of DEIA offices, employees, and contracts by January 23, and reduction-in-force plans by January 31.⁸ A February 5 memo clarified that agencies must retain the staff needed to process discrimination complaints, collect demographic data, and handle disability accommodations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but Employee Resource Groups promoting DEIA and Special Emphasis Programs based on protected characteristics were to be eliminated or reorganized.⁹

The staffing effects were substantial. The EPA moved to close its Office of Environmental Justice, Office of Inclusive Excellence, and regional environmental justice divisions, placing roughly 170 employees on administrative leave. The Department of Homeland Security issued reduction-in-force notices to about 150 employees in its Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. NASA laid off around 20 employees working on diversity issues. The IRS targeted its Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Taxpayer Services.¹⁰

New Contractor Obligations

The revocation of Executive Order 11246 ended the requirement that federal contractors maintain affirmative action plans addressing race and sex. On July 1, 2025, the Department of Labor published a proposed rule to formally rescind all implementing regulations, with a comment period that closed in September 2025. As of mid-2026, the rescission remains a proposal, not a final rule. Separately, the OFCCP proposed dropping the requirement that contractors invite applicants to self-identify as individuals with disabilities and abandoning utilization goal requirements, while keeping outreach and recruitment obligations under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act.¹¹

In March 2026, another executive order — “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors” — required agencies to include a new contract clause prohibiting “racially discriminatory DEI activities,” defined as disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in hiring, promotions, training, or contracting. Compliance was made material to payment decisions under the False Claims Act, meaning contractors who maintain race-conscious programs and certify compliance could face contract cancellation, debarment, or litigation.¹²

Enforcement Against Private Employers and Universities

In May 2025, the Department of Justice launched a “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative” to investigate entities receiving federal funds that allegedly use DEI programs in violation of federal civil rights law. The DOJ issued civil investigative demands to Harvard regarding admissions and to Google and Verizon regarding workplace DEI. In April 2026, the DOJ announced a $17 million settlement with IBM over alleged unlawful DEI practices.¹³

The EEOC has made DEI-related discrimination an enforcement priority, stating in guidance that there is “no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination; there is only discrimination,” and applying the same standard of proof regardless of the complainant’s race. The agency has cited cases in which courts treated race-conscious workforce initiatives and certain diversity trainings as evidence of discrimination.¹⁴

In higher education, the DOJ has warned that race-conscious scholarships, diversity statements in hiring, identity-based student lounges, and even facially neutral strategies chosen for demographic reasons could put federal funding at risk. Education Secretary Linda McMahon directed colleges to submit detailed admissions data disaggregated by race and sex to verify compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on race-conscious admissions.¹⁵

State Laws Restricting DEI

The Chronicle of Higher Education was tracking 151 bills across 30 states aimed at restricting DEI in higher education as of early 2026, with 30 enacted into law.¹⁶ These laws generally target DEI offices and staff, mandatory diversity training, diversity statements in hiring and promotion, and the use of race or sex in admissions and employment.

Texas SB 17, effective January 2024, prohibits DEI offices, mandatory training, and DEI funding at public colleges.¹⁷
Alabama SB 129, effective October 2024, bans DEI offices, programs, and identity-based preferences.¹⁷
Iowa HF 856, effective July 2025, bars public entities from funding DEI offices, employing DEI officers, or using preferential hiring, and limits DEI content in general-education requirements.¹⁸
Ohio’s law, effective March 2025, bans DEI offices, diversity training, and diversity statements in hiring and admissions.¹⁷
North Carolina HB 171 would have imposed a broad ban on DEI in state agency hiring and diversity training but was vetoed by Governor Josh Stein in July 2025.¹⁸

Some state proposals have started reaching into the private sector. Texas HB 147 sought to extend restrictions to public contractors. North Carolina’s vetoed bill would have barred state agencies from applying for federal funds carrying DEI compliance conditions.¹⁹ By mid-2026, the Chronicle had tracked DEI-related changes at 451 campuses across 48 states, ranging from dissolution of DEI offices at institutions such as Auburn, Appalachian State, and Bowling Green State to rebranding under terms like “belonging,” “community,” or “culture.”¹⁷

Key Litigation

Constitutional Challenges to the Executive Orders

The leading case is National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by NADOHE, the American Association of University Professors, and the city of Baltimore. Judge Adam B. Abelson granted a preliminary injunction on February 21, 2025, ruling that provisions of the orders were unconstitutionally vague, imposed prior restraints on speech, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.²⁰

A three-judge Fourth Circuit panel unanimously stayed the injunction on March 14, 2025, and on February 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial constitutional challenges. The court found that the government has broad latitude in funding contexts and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the “enforcement threat” provision.²¹ The case remains active in the district court on remand.²²

A separate suit filed in April 2025 by a coalition of 19 state attorneys general led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell challenges the Department of Education’s threat to withhold funding from state and local agencies that refuse to certify compliance with the administration’s anti-DEI reading. Massachusetts alone risks nearly $575 million in annual federal education assistance.²³ Campbell also co-led amicus briefs backing Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump in the Seventh Circuit.²⁴

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

In June 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court reshaped the terrain for so-called reverse discrimination claims. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court struck down the “background circumstances” rule, which several federal circuits had used to require majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened evidentiary standard before their Title VII claims could proceed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, held that Title VII protects “any individual” and draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs.²⁵ The decision makes it easier for employees to challenge race- or sex-conscious workplace programs, adding legal risk for employers that maintain them.²⁶

The Fearless Fund Settlement

The American Alliance for Equal Rights sued the Fearless Fund, a venture capital firm, arguing that its grant program exclusively for Black women-owned businesses was illegal racial discrimination. A federal appeals court ordered the program suspended in June 2024. In September 2024, Fearless Fund settled and permanently shut down its “Strivers Grant Contest,” which had awarded $20,000 grants.²⁷ CEO Arian Simone said the fund settled to avoid a Supreme Court ruling that could “end minority-based funding nationwide.” Fearless replaced the program with a $200 million loan fund open to all under-resourced business owners regardless of race or gender.²⁸

First Amendment Fights on Both Sides

Mandatory diversity training and diversity statements have generated constitutional arguments from opposite directions. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argues that faculty diversity statements function as political litmus tests and violate the First Amendment. FIRE successfully challenged Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” in Novoa v. Diaz, where a federal court struck down provisions restricting classroom discussion of concepts like racial bias, calling the government’s approach “positively dystopian.” FIRE also sued the California Community Colleges system over regulations requiring professors to incorporate “anti-racist” viewpoints and intersectional theory into their curricula.²⁹

Educators and civil liberties groups make the opposite argument: banning discussion of race in classrooms is itself a speech violation. Georgetown Law Dean William M. Treanor, responding to a demand letter from the U.S. Attorney, asserted that the First Amendment protects a university’s ability to determine “who may teach, what to teach, and how to teach it.” A lawsuit by the American Federation of Teachers contends that the government cannot mandate, direct, or control academic standards and curricula.²⁰

What Remains Protected by Statute

Executive action has not repealed the underlying civil rights and disability laws. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 still requires federal agencies to provide accessible programs and to engage in affirmative action to hire people with disabilities, and Section 508 still requires federal electronic content to be accessible.³⁰ The Americans with Disabilities Act still covers private employers with 15 or more employees, state and local government services, public accommodations, and telecommunications.³¹ OPM’s February 5, 2025, guidance itself acknowledged that agencies must retain the personnel needed to process discrimination complaints and handle disability accommodations.⁹

Even so, the AAPD reports that the DEIA rollback has produced concrete effects for disabled workers: Section 508 contracts have been terminated, agencies have begun reviewing existing reasonable accommodations, and ASL interpretation for federal broadcasts has in some cases been withdrawn.³⁰ A coalition of 16 Democratic attorneys general led by AG Campbell issued joint guidance on February 13, 2025, stating that DEIA employment initiatives remain consistent with state and federal law and pushing back on the view that such programs are inherently illegal.²⁴ Asian Americans Advancing Justice has cautioned that courts have “repeatedly blocked similar certification requirements” in federal agreements, and that rolling back DEIA programs may actually increase contractor liability for discrimination under existing civil rights law.³² Even the Fourth Circuit’s Chief Judge Albert Diaz, while staying the district court’s injunction, noted that the administration’s enforcement actions may still implicate “cognizable First and Fifth Amendment concerns.”²⁰

1
ACLU. DEI and Accessibility Explained
2
American Alliance of Museums. Facing Change Definitions
3
Federal Register. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce
4
American Association of People with Disabilities. Explaining Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
5
Biden White House Archives. Strategic Plan to Advance DEIA in the Federal Workforce
6
The White House. Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing
7
The White House. Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
8
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Initial Guidance Regarding DEIA Executive Orders
9
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Further Guidance Regarding Ending DEIA Offices, Programs and Initiatives
10
Government Executive. RIF Watch: See Which Agencies Are Laying Off Federal Workers
11
Federal Register. Rescission of Executive Order 11246 Implementing Regulations
12
The White House. Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors
13
Temple University Beasley School of Law. The False Claims Act Confronts DEI
14
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work
15
UPCEA. Justice Department Threatens College Funding Over DEI Policies
16
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Here Are the States Where Lawmakers Are Seeking to Ban Colleges’ DEI Efforts
17
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Tracking Higher Ed’s Dismantling of DEI
18
Council on Social Work Education. DEI Ban and Restrictions Tracker
19
MultiState. How State Anti-DEI Efforts Are Evolving From Public Sector to Private
20
First Amendment Encyclopedia – Middle Tennessee State University. DEI and the First Amendment
21
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, No. 25-1189
22
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump
23
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. AG Campbell Sues Trump Administration for Threatening to Withhold Education Funding
24
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. AG Campbell Supports Challenge to Executive Orders Unlawfully Targeting DEIA
25
Supreme Court of the United States. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 23-1039
26
SCOTUSblog. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
27
ABC News. Fearless Fund Ends Program for Black Women, Settling Discrimination Lawsuit
28
CBS News. Fearless Fund Legal Settlement
29
FIRE. DEI in Higher Ed: When It’s Constitutional and When It’s Not
30
American Association of People with Disabilities. Explaining DEIA Recent Actions
31
U.S. Department of Justice. Introduction to the ADA
32
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC. Executive Order on Federal Contractors and DEI