S-382-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Eric Schmitt (R-MO)
What it does
This bill would prohibit diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, training, and related personnel practices across the federal government. It would close all federal DEI offices within 90 days, bar the use of federal funds for DEI-related training or positions, and extend those prohibitions to federal contractors, grant recipients, and cooperative agreement partners. The bill would also amend accreditation standards for colleges, remove DEI requirements from financial regulators, and repeal DEI programs at the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services. It creates a private right of action allowing any person to sue in federal court over alleged violations.
Who benefits
Federal employees who object to mandatory DEI training or diversity-related ideological statements as a condition of employment or advancement. Federal job applicants who believe merit-based hiring has been displaced by demographic preferences. Private-sector employees at federal contractors who similarly object to mandatory DEI training. Religious institutions and religiously affiliated colleges that have faced accreditation pressure over DEI commitments. Businesses and individuals who believe race- or identity-neutral hiring and contracting produces fairer outcomes. Taxpayers who prefer federal funds not be spent on DEI administration. Plaintiffs' attorneys who could bring private enforcement actions under the bill's cause-of-action provision.
Who is hurt
Federal employees currently working in DEI offices, who would face reduction-in-force actions and could not be reassigned. Racial, ethnic, gender, and LGBTQ+ minority groups who may lose targeted outreach, recruitment pipelines, and workplace support structures within federal agencies. Nonprofit organizations and universities that receive federal grants and currently use some of those funds for DEI-related staff or programming. Contractors with existing DEI infrastructure who would need to restructure operations to remain eligible for federal contracts. Historically underrepresented communities in federal contracting and employment who may see reduced representation over time. Colleges and universities whose accreditors currently include DEI criteria, potentially disrupting existing accreditation frameworks.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that DEI programs in the federal government constitute race- and identity-conscious classification that violates the Equal Protection principles affirmed in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which held that race-conscious programs cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. They contend that mandatory DEI training and ideological pledge requirements compel government employees to affirm contested viewpoints as a condition of employment — a form of compelled speech the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected, most recently in 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023). They further argue that merit-based, identity-neutral hiring and contracting best serves the public interest and that federal funds should not subsidize programs that sort individuals by race, sex, or national origin.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill conflates voluntary inclusion programs with unconstitutional discrimination, sweeping away lawful equal employment opportunity efforts that have helped remedy documented disparities in federal hiring and contracting. They contend that the bill's broad, vague definitions — such as prohibiting training on "intersectionality" or "substantially similar" topics — could chill legitimate workplace anti-harassment training and suppress factual discussion of historical discrimination, raising serious First Amendment concerns of its own. They further argue that eliminating DEI infrastructure without replacing it with alternative remediation mechanisms will predictably widen representation gaps in the federal workforce, reversing decades of documented progress in agency diversity that studies link to improved government performance and public trust.
Constitutional context
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and its federal analog under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause are central here: the bill's supporters invoke Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which subjected race-conscious programs to strict scrutiny, while opponents may argue the bill itself raises equal protection concerns by targeting programs that benefit specific groups. The First Amendment is also implicated: 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023) supports the bill's compelled-speech rationale for banning mandatory ideological pledges, but opponents may argue the bill's broad training prohibitions themselves restrict government speech and academic freedom. Congress's Section 5 enforcement power under the 14th Amendment provides authority to legislate against discrimination, but under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), such legislation must be congruent and proportional to identified constitutional violations.
Checks and balances
The legislative branch would gain authority by codifying DEI prohibitions into statute — limiting executive discretion that presidents have historically exercised through executive orders — while the judiciary gains a significant new role through the bill's private right of action, which allows any person to sue agencies and advisory committees and seek mandatory termination orders and damages.
Historical precedent
Executive Order 11246 (1965) required federal contractors to take affirmative action in hiring and was enforced for decades; subsequent executive orders and legislation have repeatedly shifted the federal government's posture on race- and identity-conscious employment practices, making this bill part of a long-running cycle of policy reversal rather than a wholly novel action.