The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 9309·119th Congress·Introduced Jun 11, 2026

PRIDE Act of 2026

IntroducedFinance and Financial SectorSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
Committees
Financial Services Committee (primary)
Last action
Jun 11, 2026

Bottom line

The PRIDE Act of 2026 broadens federal diversity and inclusion mandates in financial services and housing to explicitly cover LGBTQI+ individuals and businesses.

What it actually does

This bill expands the scope of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion, established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, to explicitly include LGBTQI+ individuals and LGBTQI+-owned businesses. It amends various sections of these acts to incorporate LGBTQI+ into diversity and inclusion mandates for employment, contracting, and financial services. The bill also provides specific definitions for 'LGBTQI+' and 'LGBTQI+-owned business'.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step towards ensuring equitable access and representation for LGBTQI+ individuals and businesses within the financial services and housing sectors. They contend that explicitly including LGBTQI+ identities in diversity initiatives will address historical discrimination, foster economic empowerment, and bring a wider range of perspectives and talents into federal agencies and their contracting processes, ultimately strengthening these institutions.

Opponents contend

Critics may argue that while the intent is laudable, expanding existing mandates could lead to increased administrative burdens for federal agencies and businesses without clear evidence of proportional benefits. Some might also contend that existing non-discrimination laws are sufficient or that defining and verifying 'LGBTQI+-owned business' status could present practical challenges and potential for misuse, diverting resources from other diversity efforts.

The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed review by any interested reader.

Section 2(a)

Expansion of Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It renames the 'Office of Minority and Women Inclusion' to the 'Office of Minority, Women, and LGBTQI+ Inclusion' across the act. It also expands the scope of these offices to promote diversity and inclusion for LGBTQI+ individuals and LGBTQI+-owned businesses in employment, contracting, and financial services, alongside minorities and women.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupLGBTQI+ individualsImpactIncreased opportunities for employment and participation in financial servicesMechanismExplicit inclusion in diversity mandates for federal agenciesScaleBroad
GroupLGBTQI+-owned businessesImpactEnhanced access to federal contracts and financial servicesMechanismExplicit inclusion in diversity mandates for federal agencies and their contractorsScaleBroad
GroupFederal financial agencies (e.g., Treasury, Federal Reserve, FDIC)ImpactExpanded scope of diversity and inclusion responsibilitiesMechanismMandate to include LGBTQI+ in existing diversity programs and reportingScaleOperational

Supporters argue

Proponents argue that this expansion is essential to reflect a more comprehensive understanding of diversity and to ensure that LGBTQI+ individuals and businesses, who have historically faced discrimination, are explicitly included in federal efforts to promote economic equity and opportunity.

Critics contend

Opponents might express concerns about the practicalities of implementing these expanded mandates, including potential administrative burdens and the need for clear guidelines to ensure effective and fair application across various agencies.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the goal of comprehensive inclusion with the administrative challenges of expanding existing diversity frameworks to cover additional protected characteristics and business types.

Section 2(a)(8)

Definitions of LGBTQI+ and LGBTQI+-Owned Business

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section adds two new definitions to the Dodd-Frank Act: 'LGBTQI+' is defined as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex. An 'LGBTQI+-owned business' is defined as a business where more than 50 percent of the ownership or control, and more than 50 percent of the net profit or loss, is held by one or more LGBTQI+ individuals. These definitions are crucial for the consistent application of the bill's expanded inclusion mandates.

Section 2(b)

Conforming Amendments to Related Acts

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section makes necessary updates to other existing laws to align with the new terminology and expanded scope. Specifically, it amends the table of contents and a specific section of the Dodd-Frank Act, and revises Section 1319A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. These amendments ensure that the 'Office of Minority, Women, and LGBTQI+ Inclusion' and its expanded mandate are consistently recognized across relevant federal statutes concerning financial services and housing.

FOUND

This section makes a technical correction to the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, effective on its date of enactment, by striking paragraph (2) of section 1161(a) of that Act.

Section 2(c)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for technical corrections, which are often minor cleanups or clarifications that do not warrant prominent placement. However, without the text of the original paragraph, its substantive impact remains unclear to a casual reader.

Case for: Proponents would argue that this is a necessary cleanup to correct an error or remove an outdated provision from a previous act, ensuring legal accuracy and coherence.

Case against: Without knowing what paragraph (2) of section 1161(a) of the 2008 Act contained, it's impossible to formulate a specific case against its removal. However, a general concern might be that removing a provision could have unintended consequences if it was more substantive than a mere technicality.

Estimated impact: The impact is unknown without the text of the original paragraph being struck. It is likely a minor, non-controversial cleanup.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this