Dismantle DEI Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 4, 2025
Bottom line
This bill seeks to eliminate all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, offices, and related training within the federal government and its associated entities, asserting these practices are discriminatory and promote racism.
What it actually does
This bill aims to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government, federal contractors, and grant recipients. It defines "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice" as discriminating based on protected characteristics or requiring training/assent to concepts of inherent superiority/inferiority of these groups. The bill rescinds specific executive orders, closes DEI offices, prohibits related training and funding, and establishes a private cause of action for violations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill ensures equal protection under the law by preventing discrimination and ending practices they contend are divisive, promote specific ideologies, and lead to reverse discrimination. They believe DEI initiatives assert that certain groups are inherently superior or inferior, or oppressed or privileged, which they view as racist and contrary to merit-based systems.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill undermines efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote a more representative and inclusive federal workforce and society. They would contend that DEI initiatives are crucial for fostering fairness, combating discrimination, and ensuring equitable opportunities for all individuals, especially those from historically marginalized communities.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 3, Title XII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Definition of Prohibited DEI Practice
This section defines what constitutes a "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice." It includes discriminating for or against any person 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
Supporters argue this definition is necessary to clarify what constitutes discriminatory practice and to prevent the promotion of divisive ideologies within federal entities, ensuring a focus on individual merit.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue this definition is overly broad and could stifle legitimate efforts to address systemic discrimination and promote inclusion, potentially hindering progress towards equitable workplaces.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to prevent perceived discrimination and ideological mandates against efforts to promote diversity and address historical inequities.
Sec. 101
Rescission of DEI-Related Executive Orders
This section revokes 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, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the federal workforce. It also mandates the closure of programs and offices carrying out these EOs within 90 days of enactment and explicitly prohibits the reassignment of affected employees, instead requiring a reduction in force.
Sec. 102
OPM Compliance and DEI Office Termination
This provision requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to revise all its regulations, policies, and guidance to comply with the Act and rescind any materials related to the now-rescinded DEI executive orders. It mandates the termination and winding up of OPM's Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (ODEIA) and the Chief Diversity Officers Executive Council, including a reduction in force for their employees. Furthermore, it amends Title 5 of the U.S. Code to explicitly prohibit "racist behavior and racist training" in government, aligning with the bill's definition of prohibited DEI practices.
Sec. 104
Prohibition on Federal Funding for DEI Activities
This section broadly prohibits the use of any federal funds for maintaining DEI offices or substantially similar offices, the Chief Diversity Officers Executive Council, or chief diversity officers within any agency. It also bans federal funding for developing, implementing, distributing, or purchasing DEI-related plans, reports, surveys (with an exception for legally required ones), employee resource groups based on protected characteristics, agency equity teams, the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council, the Equitable Data Working Group, or any training courses related to diversity, equity, inclusion, critical theory, intersectionality, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Exceptions are made for historically organized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) offices.
Sec. 106, amends 5 U.S.C. 2302(b), 4302, 4312
Prohibited Personnel Practices Related to DEI
This section amends federal personnel law to make it a prohibited personnel practice to take adverse action against an employee or applicant for employment because they fail to complete DEI-related training, assent to DEI-related statements, or take actions that would treat individuals advantageously or disadvantageously based on protected characteristics. It also prohibits performance appraisal systems from adversely evaluating employees for these reasons, extending protections to both general federal employees and senior executives.
Sec. 301, amends 41 U.S.C. 6502, 6703
Prohibition of Prohibited DEI Practices in Federal Contracts
This section requires federal contracts, both for supplies and services, to include terms specifying that no part of the contract will be performed by a contractor or any subcontractor who is subject to, or required to comply with, a "prohibited diversity, equity or inclusion practice" as defined in the bill. This means contractors must ensure their operations do not engage in discriminatory practices or ideological mandates as a condition of federal work.
Sec. 401, amends 31 U.S.C. Chapter 63
Prohibition of Prohibited DEI Practices in Federal Grants
This section requires federal grant agreements to include terms prohibiting recipients from using federal funds for DEI offices, chief diversity officers, DEI-related training, or engaging in "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practices." Crucially, it includes exceptions for the maintenance and funding of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) offices, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), allowing them to continue their operations.
Sec. 501, amends 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)
Prohibition of DEI Practices in Federal Advisory Committees
This section prohibits federal advisory committees, their chairs, and sponsoring agency heads from authorizing, permitting, or implementing "prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practices." It mandates the termination of any advisory committee found in violation by the Administrator of General Services or an agency's Inspector General. Furthermore, it establishes a private cause of action, allowing any person to sue in federal court for violations, with potential awards including equitable relief, a minimum of $1,000 per violation per day, attorney's fees, and compensatory damages.
Sec. 601, amends 20 U.S.C. 1099b(c)
Accreditation Standards for Higher Education
This section amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require accrediting agencies to confirm that their standards for accreditation do not mandate, encourage, or coerce institutions of higher education to engage in "prohibited DEI practices." Additionally, it ensures that accreditation standards do not assess an institution's commitment to any specific ideology, prohibit or discourage religious missions, or discriminate against religious speech or practice, thereby protecting academic and religious freedom.
Sec. 801
Private Cause of Action for Violations
This section establishes a private cause of action, allowing any person who alleges 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 or declaratory relief, a minimum of $1,000 per violation per day, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, and compensatory damages. This provides a powerful enforcement mechanism for individuals to challenge perceived non-compliance.
Prohibits the transfer, reassignment, or redesignation of employees or contractors whose positions are eliminated due to the closure of DEI programs or offices. Instead, it mandates an "appropriate reduction in force."
Sec. 101(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing the consequences of program termination, but it's a significant detail for affected personnel, ensuring that positions are truly eliminated rather than merely re-labeled.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents agencies from simply re-labeling DEI roles or moving personnel to similar functions, ensuring a genuine dismantling of DEI infrastructure and associated costs.
Case against: Opponents would argue this is a punitive measure that unnecessarily targets federal employees and contractors, leading to job losses rather than skill redeployment, and could result in a loss of institutional knowledge.
Estimated impact: Direct job losses for federal employees and contractors whose roles are eliminated, rather than internal transfers.
Prohibits the use of federal funds for "developing, implementing, or maintaining in any agency an employee resource group or an affinity group based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
Sec. 104(2)(D)
Why it matters:This is a specific detail within a broader prohibition, potentially overlooked by those focusing on larger DEI offices or training programs, but it impacts a common form of employee support.
Case for: Proponents would argue that ERGs based on protected characteristics can foster division or promote specific identity-based agendas rather than universal merit, and therefore should not be funded by taxpayers.
Case against: Opponents would contend that ERGs are vital for fostering a sense of belonging, providing support, and promoting retention for employees from underrepresented groups, and defunding them would harm morale and inclusion.
Estimated impact: Eliminates federal funding for numerous employee support networks across agencies.
Expands the definition of "employee" under Section 701(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include any person who serves on a board of directors of a publicly traded issuer and is compensated by that issuer.
Sec. 702(b)
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to an existing statute, not immediately obvious in its broad implications for corporate governance and potential liability, which could be missed by a casual reader.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures that corporate board members are subject to the same anti-discrimination protections and principles as other employees, preventing discriminatory practices in board selection.
Case against: Opponents might argue this could complicate corporate governance, potentially leading to increased litigation regarding board appointments and potentially chilling efforts to proactively diversify boards.
Estimated impact: Potentially broad impact on corporate board selection processes and liability for publicly traded companies.