An Overview of Anti-DEI Legislation in 2025
August 31, 2025
Since his campaign and eventual inauguration into the Office of the Presidency, Donald Trump has routinely targeted institutional practices surrounding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI. The Trump Administration has issued a number of making DEI practices and programs illegal at all levels of the federal government, including the Department of Education. They’ve also put pressure on the private sector to shutter its DEI programs, and even claimed that laws relating to DEI are 鈥渋llegal and immoral鈥� and actually serve to promote “discrimination” on the basis of 鈥�race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.鈥� This kind of discrimination is the very thing that laws in favor of diversity, equity, and inclusion are meant to counteract.聽
So, what actions has the Trump Administration taken to curb DEI efforts at the federal level? Trump signed two sweeping executive orders on the first days of his second term. Here鈥檚 how they shake out.聽
Trump Administration Anti-DEI Executive Orders
- January 20, 2025: 鈥淓nding Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.鈥� The Trump administration鈥檚 against DEI policies came on the day of President Trump鈥檚 inauguration.
The order states specifically that the Biden Administration 鈥渇orced illegal and immoral discrimination programs 鈥� into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.鈥澛�
The executive order states that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Attorney General, and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 鈥渟hall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and 鈥榙iversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility鈥� (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.鈥�
- January 21, 2025: 鈥淓nding Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.鈥� This pits the 1964 Civil Rights Act against recent DEI measures in a contradictory way. Among other things, it further serves to:听
- Terminate previous executive orders related to environmental justice, diversity in the federal workforce, equal employment, and diversity and inclusion in the national security workforce.聽
- Compel the Department of Labor to stop 鈥減romoting 鈥榙iversity,鈥欌�� holding federal contractors responsible for affirmative action, balancing workforces based on race, sex, color, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.聽
- Compel the OMB to cut any references to DEI and DEIA principles from federal acquisition, contracting, grant, and financial assistance procedures.聽
- Compel the OMB to terminate all DEI mandates, programs, and activities.聽
- Compel all state and local education agencies that receive federal funds, including institutions of higher education that receive funds under Title IV, to comply with the ruling in that ruled that affirmative action programs at most colleges violate the Fourteenth Amendment.聽
The effect of these executive orders promoted a culture of paranoia and fear, particularly on college campuses, where administrators and professors immediately understood that many valuable programs for students would be potentially dismantled. This has certainly been the case in many states.聽
Has There Been Legal Pushback?
Yes. In February, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC), the National Association of Diversity Officers in higher Education (NADOHE), and the Mayor and City Council of the City of Baltimore over the executive orders. The groups claimed that the January 21 executive order, 鈥淓nding Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,鈥� suppresses free speech around diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility principles. The lawsuit also claimed that millions of dollars in grant money would be lost, costing cities like Baltimore critical programs and services.聽聽
Also in February, sixteen state attorneys general also issued reaffirming their commitment to workplace diversity. The guidance:听
- Stated that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are not only legal, they also create positive work environments consistent with鈥攏ot in contradiction to鈥攖he Civil Rights Act.聽
- Argued that the portrayal of DEI programs as illegal is inaccurate. The AGs underscored the difference between truly illegal practices, such as quotas, preferences, and workforce balancing, with legal practices, like anti-bias training and using data to identify disparities.聽
- Provided evidence stating that diverse workplaces are stronger workplaces.聽
What’s the Difference Between an Executive Order and a Constitutional Right?
One of the most important things to remember is the difference between an executive order and a constitutional right. While the President of the United States鈥� main role is to implement laws, the president can also issue executive orders. But those orders aren鈥檛 the same as laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. In recent decades, the United States has seen an that (many times) simply exist for the tenure of that party and get overturned when the opposing party comes into power. It鈥檚 a governing tool that can create waves of chaos in the country as the orders stand to change every four years.聽
By way of example, in his first 100 days, President Trump signed a total of 147 executive orders. He signed only five actual bills into law. These represent a record high number of executive orders and a record low number of bills signed into law in a president鈥檚 first 100 days.聽
It鈥檚 also worth noting that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all people born or naturalized in the United States equal protection under the law. The 15th Amendment prohibits federal and state governments from discriminating against Americans based on race, sex, religion, age, prior condition of servitude, physical disability, national origin, and sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions). Very broadly speaking, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the 24th Amendment, and state civil rights laws are all in place to protect people from acts of discrimination on the basis of identity. These laws cannot be overturned by executive order.聽
The executive orders, however, can serve to disrupt policies and programs that rely on federal funding and are not legally protected in the same way that citizens are. The anti-DEI culture and rhetoric of the Trump administration have created a wave of anti-DEI measures at the state level, as well.聽
Have State Policies Been Impacted?
They sure have. Many conservative states followed suit with the Trump administration, making DEI policies illegal at the state level, leading K鈥�12 schools, colleges, and universities to cancel and roll back DEI programs.聽
State legislation to abolish DEI policies follows one of four proposals laid out in an issue brief by the and in briefs by the . The Manhattan Institute is an 鈥�, corporate-funded, New York-based policy group鈥� founded by former CIA Director William Casey in 1978. Its funding comes from large, Fortune 500 corporations like Exxon, Bristol-Meyers, and Pfizer. The Goldwater Institute is a conservative think thank out of Phoenix, AZ, founded by former U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater.聽
The Manhattan Institute calls for four major proposals in rolling back DEI policies in higher education. They are:听
- 鈥淎bolish DEI bureaucracies聽
- End mandatory diversity training聽
- Curtail political coercion聽
- End identity-based preferences.鈥澛�
States that have enacted anti-DEI legislation have followed these proposals through model state legislation written by the Manhattan and Goldwater Institutes, as initially reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.聽
States with Anti-DEI Legislation Enacted or Pending
The following states have enacted or are currently considering some version of an anti-DEI law. Some of these states enacted laws in 2023 and 2024:
- Alabama: Senate Bill 129 was signed into law by Gov. Kay Ivey on March 20, 2024聽
- Arizona: Senate Bill 1694 was introduced and vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs on May 2, 2025.聽
- Arkansas: Act 341 was signed into law by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders on March 18, 2025.聽
- Florida:听
- Senate Bill 266 was signed into law on July 1, 2023.聽
- House Bill 931 was signed into law on July 1, 2025.
- Idaho: Senate Bill 1274 was signed into law by Gov. Brad Little on March 21, 2024.聽
- Indiana: Executive Order 25-14 signed by Gov. Mike Braun on January 14, 2025.聽
- Iowa: Senate Fil 2435 signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May 2024聽
- Kansas: House Bill 2105 was allowed to become law without the governor鈥檚 signature in April 2024聽
- Kentucky: House Bill 4 was vetoed on March 20, 2025, by Gov. Andy Beshear. Kentucky Republicans were able to override the governor鈥檚 veto and the bill became law.聽
- Louisiana: House Bill 685 passed in the House on May 20, 2025, but has stalled. It has been returned to the Calendar and is subject to call.聽
- Nebraska: Legislative Bill 552 was introduced on January 22, 2025. It died in committee in March 2025.聽聽
- North Carolina: Senate Bills 227 and 558 and House Bill 171 were passed by the General Assembly, but were vetoed by Gov. Josh Stein on July 3, 2025. The bills returned to the General Assembly for potential override votes.聽
- North Dakota: Senate Bill 2247 was signed into law in 2023.聽
- Ohio: Senate Bill 1 was signed into law on March 28, 2025.聽
- South Carolina: House Bill 3927 was introduced in 2025. House Bill 3572 was introduced in 2024. Both bills are currently making their way through the legislature.聽
- Tennessee: Gov. Bill Lee signed the 鈥淒ismantling DEI Departments Act鈥� into law on May 9.聽
- Texas: Senate Bill 17 was signed into law in 2023. Senate Bill 12 was signed into law on September 1, 2025.聽
- Utah: House Bill 261 was signed into law in January 2024.聽
- West Virginia: Executive Order No. 3-25 signed by Gov. Patrick Morrisey on January 14, 2025.聽
- Wyoming: House Bill 147 signed into law on July 1, 2025.聽
Relevant Resources
