Dismantle DEI Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to comprehensively dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and practices throughout the Federal Government and federally funded sectors by prohibiting specific activities and creating enforcement mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Dismantle DEI Act of 2025," aims to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the Federal Government. It rescinds several executive orders and memoranda related to DEI, prohibits the use of federal funds for DEI offices, officers, and training, and amends various statutes to prevent DEI practices in federal agencies, contracting, grants, education, and specific government entities like the Department of Defense and financial regulators. The bill also establishes a private cause of action for violations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill ensures equal protection under the law by preventing discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national origin. They contend that DEI initiatives often promote divisive ideologies, assert systemic superiority or inferiority of certain groups, and lead to discriminatory practices that undermine merit-based systems in federal employment and other sectors. Eliminating these programs, they assert, will foster a truly equitable environment where individuals are judged solely on their qualifications and character.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill would severely undermine critical efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote diversity within the federal workforce, federally funded institutions, and corporate boards. They argue that eliminating DEI offices, training, and policies would exacerbate existing disparities, reduce representation of underrepresented groups, and create a less inclusive environment. Critics also suggest that the bill's broad prohibitions could stifle important discussions about race, gender, and equity, potentially leading to increased discrimination and a less effective government and society.
The bill is 20 pages long, which is a manageable length for an informed reader to review. However, its broad scope and numerous amendments to existing law require careful consideration to understand its full implications across various federal sectors.
Sec. 3
Definition of Prohibited Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion Practice
This section amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to define what constitutes a 'prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice.' This includes discriminating based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national origin. It also prohibits requiring employees to undergo training or assent to statements that assert a particular group is inherently superior or inferior, oppressive or oppressed, or privileged or unprivileged.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this definition is crucial for ensuring true equal protection by explicitly outlawing practices they believe are discriminatory or promote divisive ideologies within the federal workplace. They believe it prevents mandated ideological conformity.
Critics contend
Opponents argue this definition is overly broad and could be interpreted to prohibit legitimate training and discussions aimed at fostering understanding, addressing unconscious bias, or promoting an inclusive work environment. They contend it could hinder efforts to combat systemic discrimination.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of preventing ideological coercion with the potential to restrict educational initiatives aimed at fostering diversity and inclusion. It aims to prevent perceived discrimination by DEI programs while risking the elimination of programs designed to address actual discrimination.
Sec. 101, Title I
Rescission of Executive Orders and Memoranda
This section rescinds several Executive Orders and National Security Memoranda issued by the Biden administration related to advancing racial equity, combating discrimination based on gender identity/sexual orientation, establishing a Gender Policy Council, and promoting diversity in the federal workforce and foreign policy. It mandates the termination and winding up of any programs or offices carrying out these rescinded directives, including appropriate reductions in force without reassigning affected employees.
Sec. 102, Title I
Office of Personnel Management Reforms
This section directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to revise all its regulations, policies, and training materials to comply with the Act and rescind those related to the previously rescinded Executive Orders. It specifically mandates the termination of OPM's Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (ODEIA) and the Chief Diversity Officers Executive Council, including reductions in force for affected employees. It also amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to prohibit "racist behavior and racist training" in government, defining these broadly to include DEI practices.
Sec. 104, Title I
Prohibited Use of Federal Funds for DEI Activities
This section broadly prohibits the use of any federal funds for maintaining DEI offices, Chief Diversity Officers, DEI-related plans or reports (with an exception for legally required ones), employee resource groups based on protected characteristics, agency equity teams, or specific training courses related to diversity, equity, inclusion, critical theory, or intersectionality. It includes a crucial carve-out, stating that nothing in the section prevents the maintenance and funding of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices or offices enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Sec. 106, Title I
Prohibited Personnel Practices and Performance Appraisal Systems
This section amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to classify certain actions as prohibited personnel practices. Specifically, it prevents adverse personnel actions (e.g., failure to hire, promote, or evaluate negatively) against employees or applicants who refuse to complete DEI-related training (including critical theory or intersectionality) or refuse to sign/assent to statements promoting such theories. It also prohibits personnel actions that would treat individuals advantageously or disadvantageously based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national origin, or classify employees in a way that deprives them of employment opportunities based on these characteristics.
Sec. 201-202, Title II
Government-Wide Prohibition on DEI Training
These sections amend Title 5 of the U.S. Code to prohibit the development, implementation, distribution, publication, establishment, or purchase of any federal training program or plan related to diversity, equity, inclusion, critical theory (race, gender, or otherwise), intersectionality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It also specifically bans training that asserts or requires trainees to assert that a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion, biological sex, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior, oppressive or oppressed, or privileged or unprivileged. Federal employees cannot be required to complete such training.
Sec. 301-303, Title III
Federal Contracting Prohibitions on DEI
These sections amend federal contracting statutes (Titles 41 and 40 U.S. Code) to require that federal contracts include terms prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from engaging in "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practices" (as defined in Sec. 3). It also explicitly prohibits federal contractors from using federal funds for DEI offices, officers, or training. Similar to federal agencies, it carves out exceptions for EEO and ADA offices, and allows contractors to use non-federal funds for DEI activities.
Sec. 401-402, Title IV
Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Prohibitions on DEI
These sections amend Title 31 of the U.S. Code to require that federal grant and cooperative agreements include terms prohibiting recipients from using federal funds for DEI offices, officers, or training (including critical theory or intersectionality). It also prohibits recipients from engaging in any "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice." Similar to other sections, it includes exceptions for EEO and ADA offices and allows recipients to use non-federal funds for DEI activities. Notably, Section 401(c) explicitly states that nothing in the section prevents the maintenance and funding of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Sec. 501-503, Title V
Federal Advisory Committees and DEI Practices
These sections amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5 U.S. Code) to prohibit federal advisory committees, their administrators, and agency heads from authorizing, permitting, or implementing a "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice." If such a practice is found by the Administrator or an Inspector General, the advisory committee must be terminated within 30 days. The bill also creates a private cause of action, allowing any person to sue for a determination of non-compliance, with courts empowered to order committee termination and award damages and attorney's fees.
Sec. 601-602, Title VI
Education Sector Prohibitions on DEI
These sections amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require accrediting agencies to confirm that their accreditation standards do not mandate, encourage, or coerce institutions of higher education to engage in "prohibited diversity, equity, and inclusion practices." It also prohibits accreditors from assessing an institution's commitment to any ideology or discriminating against religious institutions. Furthermore, it prohibits the Secretary of Education from using federal funds for DEI offices, officers, or training, with exceptions for EEO and ADA offices, and allows contractors/grantees of the Department to use non-federal funds for DEI.
Sec. 701, Title VII
Repeal of Diversity Requirements for Housing Finance Agencies
This section repeals Section 1319A of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which established an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and mandated diversity and inclusion requirements for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Sec. 702, Title VII
Capital Markets Regulation; Corporate Boards; Self-Regulatory Organizations
This section repeals Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which established Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) at various financial agencies. It also amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include corporate board members of public companies in the definition of "employee," subjecting them to anti-discrimination laws. Furthermore, it prohibits federal functional regulators and national securities associations from engaging in or requiring "prohibited diversity, equity, and inclusion practices."
Sec. 704, Title VII
Repeal of Department of Defense DEI Programs
This section repeals several provisions in Title 10 of the U.S. Code related to diversity and inclusion within the Department of Defense (DoD). Specifically, it removes reporting requirements on diversity and inclusion, repeals the position of Chief Diversity Officer, and eliminates the program on diversity in military leadership.
Sec. 801, Title VIII
Private Cause of Action for Violations
This section establishes a private cause of action, allowing any person alleging a violation of this Act to bring a civil action in any United States District Court. If the plaintiff prevails, the court may award various forms of relief, including a Writ of Mandamus or other equitable/declaratory relief, a minimum of $1,000 per violation per day, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, and compensatory damages.
These sections include a rule of construction explicitly stating that nothing in the prohibitions on DEI offices and funding shall be construed to prevent the maintenance and funding of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices or offices enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as historically organized and operated.
Sec. 104(4) and Sec. 105(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope of new prohibitions and ensure they do not inadvertently repeal or undermine existing, widely accepted civil rights frameworks. It serves to address potential concerns about the bill's impact on these established protections.
Case for: Supporters argue that this carve-out demonstrates the bill's intent is not to dismantle all anti-discrimination efforts, but specifically those related to DEI practices that they deem problematic. It reassures that fundamental protections for equal opportunity and disability rights remain intact.
Case against: Critics might argue that while these specific offices are preserved, the broad dismantling of other DEI initiatives could still indirectly weaken the overall infrastructure for promoting equity, making it harder for EEO and ADA offices to operate effectively in an environment hostile to broader inclusion efforts.
Estimated impact: Ensures the continued operation and funding of federal EEO and ADA offices, which are critical for enforcing anti-discrimination laws based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability.
This subsection, within the section on required grant agreement terms, states: 'Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the maintenance and funding of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).'
Sec. 401(c)
Why it matters:This is likely a politically strategic carve-out to address concerns that the broad prohibitions on DEI funding could inadvertently harm institutions like HBCUs, which serve specific demographic groups and are vital for educational equity. Its placement ensures it is part of the bill but not highlighted in the main prohibitive language.
Case for: Supporters would argue this demonstrates the bill's intent is not to harm institutions that historically serve specific communities, but rather to target specific ideological DEI practices. It provides a necessary protection for HBCUs.
Case against: Critics might question the practical implications of this carve-out, arguing that while HBCUs themselves are protected, their ability to engage in certain DEI-related programs or training, especially if federally funded, might still be constrained by other parts of the bill.
Estimated impact: Ensures that federal funding and support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities are not jeopardized by the bill's broader prohibitions on DEI practices for grant recipients.
This subsection amends Section 701(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e) to add: 'The term 'employee' includes any person who serves on a board of directors of an issuer that has a registration statement in effect as to a security under the Securities Act of 1933 and is compensated by the issuer.'
Sec. 702(b)
Why it matters:Its placement within a bill focused on dismantling DEI might be a tactical maneuver to expand the scope of anti-discrimination law to corporate boards without drawing as much attention as a standalone bill. It broadens the application of existing law rather than dismantling a specific program, making it distinct from the bill's main thrust.
Case for: Proponents might argue that this ensures greater accountability for diversity and inclusion at the highest levels of corporate governance, preventing discrimination in board selection and treatment. It extends existing civil rights protections to a previously uncovered group.
Case against: Critics might argue that this is an overreach into corporate governance, potentially leading to increased litigation against companies and complicating board recruitment. They might also contend that its inclusion in an anti-DEI bill is incongruous, as it expands a form of anti-discrimination enforcement.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include compensated corporate board members of public companies, subjecting them to federal anti-discrimination laws regarding employment.