Politics
Companies grapple with uncertainty as Trump targets private sector DEI
Latham & Watkins lawyer spoke with Blade on Wednesday
Powerful companies and well known organizations have made headlines in the weeks since President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the private sector, whether by announcing changes or rollbacks to their DEI programs, by defending their policies and practices, or by declining to wade into the debate at this early stage.
Danielle Conley, a partner at Latham & Watkins who leads the law firm’s anti-discrimination and civil rights practice, spoke with the Washington Blade on Wednesday about how companies and organizations are navigating an uncertain and rapidly evolving landscape.
“So much of this is it just comes down to what is the risk tolerance of the leadership of your company or your organization,” she said, noting that some firms have taken steps to avoid scrutiny from the federal government while others are standing firm in their policies and practices concerning DEI with the expectation that they would be ruled lawful if challenged. “We’ve seen organizations and institutions on both ends of the spectrum.”
Conley said private sector companies and the types of organizations specified in Trump’s order are working on “making sure that they’re on the right side of the legal lines, in the way that the civil rights laws exist right now, and also reviewing their practices and policies for political risks, and seeing whether there are potential changes that they need to make in order to not come under federal scrutiny.”
She stressed, however, that this type of audit is “very difficult to do in light of all of the uncertainty” about how to interpret the orders and how the lawsuits challenging them will ultimately be decided.
“Folks expected that there would be a domestic policy priority around diversity, equity and inclusion issues,” as Trump promised during his campaign, “but at the same time, the language of those executive orders sweep very broadly, and so there were certainly aspects of the executive orders that clients are still very much grappling with and trying to understand the implications of,” she said.
Issued on the first day of Trump’s second term, the first order stipulates that “the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the attorney general and the director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the federal government, under whatever name they appear.”
The directive issued on the following day includes a section titled “Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences,” which mandates that the attorney general takes “appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,” “deter” such “programs or principles” and “identify … potential civil compliance investigations” to accomplish such “deter[rence.]”
Conley noted that DEI is not well defined, nor has the administration given “any specifics about what amounts to illegal DEI,” let alone an indication of “how the federal government is going to read the civil rights laws and interpret the civil rights laws to preclude certain DEI programs, and where they’re going to draw those particular lines.”
Risks and how to mitigate them
On one end of the spectrum are the “things that we’ve always known that you couldn’t do under the law, like using race based and gender based preferences in hiring programs,” she said—conduct covered by longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits “employers from considering race or gender in employment based decisions outside very narrow circumstances.”
On the other hand, “In light of the failure to really define DEI or to really set out any specific guidance of the kinds of programs that the government believes, under their interpretation of the civil rights laws, run afoul of those particular laws, that’s where the questions are coming from,” Conley said.
Companies, their lawyers, and the broader public are likely to soon find out, though, how and in which circumstances the Trump administration will bring an enforcement action or file a lawsuit against a company over “illegal” DEI.
The second executive action directs Attorney General Pam Bondi “to within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”
Along with other types of information and recommendations, the report must include “a plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, state and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over one billion dollars.”
Broadly, the sectors targeted by each agency will correspond with its remit, Conley said. “HHS has an office for civil rights, and they enforce both Title VI, which prohibits race discrimination in federally funded programming, and also section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits race and gender-based discrimination and other forms of discrimination in health care programming.”
She continued, “So, based on their authority, you can imagine the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, would open up investigations, potentially, into health care companies, medical schools, other health care providers.”
Meanwhile, “the Department of Education has an Office for Civil Rights. Obviously, their enforcement authority is over institutions of higher education that receive federal funds. They enforce VI, that same statute that prohibits race based discrimination in federally funded programming. And so you can imagine the Department of Education opening up investigations into colleges and universities over these issues.”
With the DOJ’s authority under Title VI, the department would be able to investigate and bring enforcement actions or litigation against healthcare companies or institutes of higher education or “any company that receives any sort of federal funding,” Conley said.
In the meantime, as companies look for clarity as evaluate the extent to which their policies and practices may draw legal or political scrutiny, Conley said there has been an “uptick in private litigation” over DEI, which means recent cases have been brought before federal courts—and, in some cases, have been decided by their judges.
These lawsuits have tended to focus on “scholarship, internship, or fellowship programs” or “grant programs” that “are restrictive on the basis of race,” or “supplier diversity initiatives” that might “have very prescriptive guidance” like requirements that a certain percentage of a company’s vendors are Black or brown or women-owned businesses, Conley explained.
Still, she cautioned, “It’s super hard to speculate, because some of this stuff just hasn’t made its way through the courts,” she said.
While firms can expect these policies and practices targeted by private litigants are likely to be a focus for the Trump administration, the question, she said, will will be how far “beyond the kind of race based restrictions that we’ve already seen come under significant challenge in the context of private litigation, how far beyond those kinds of programs will they go, as potentially being violative of the civil rights laws?”
Conley added that these firms should focus not on programs and policies that present negligible or no legal risk, like dedicating a private room in an office space for nursing mothers. Rather, she said, they should consider questions like, “What do we do in the hiring and promotion space? What are we doing with respect to scholarship programs, internship programs and our outside partnerships? What are we doing with respect to any grants that we give? Where do we have risk? Do we have any programs that are explicitly race conscious? Because we know that if we do, the legal risk there is significantly elevated.”
The process is about “really assessing each of those buckets,” she said, adding “It’s that careful analysis—it’s really all you can do in this environment, again, as things are sort of constantly shifting.”
At the same time, Conley said, “we have to remember that the vast majority of DEI programs really do remain completely lawful under any interpretation of the civil rights laws.”
“A lot of these programs were put into place to ensure and to protect against discrimination in organizations,” she said. A consequence of “the executive orders and the uncertainty around how the federal government will be interpreting the civil rights laws and the kinds of programs that may violate them could cause a lot of organizations to overcorrect.”
“Big picture,” Conley said:
- “Anytime something restricted on the basis of race, we’ve talked about how that really heightens legal risk. But I would also say [there tends to be risk] anytime that there’s a benefit being given that can be traced to race, or a burden that’s being imposed that can be traced to race.”
- “So, for example, employee resource groups at companies have been completely lawful, and plenty of companies and organizations have them. You can imagine that there could be a legal argument that if there’s an employee resource group where those members are getting certain benefits that would help them in the promotion process, that’s something that could potentially be attacked as being potentially violative of Title VII.”
- “There’s actually danger in in saying this program violates the law and this program doesn’t, because it’s super nuanced, and really does depend on the facts and circumstances of these programs and how they’re designed.”
- “Because, again, I just want to make sure that I’m not on the record [saying] that, like, employee resource groups are illegal. They’re not.”
- “But I do think that if there could be arguments made that those employee resource groups, when they’re not open to all (most are) and those employee members are getting certain benefits that could potentially help them in, let’s say, a promotion process—that could be something that, I would say, as their counsel, that could elevate your legal risk.”
Risks specific to pro-LGBTQ and pro-trans DEI in the private sector
Responding to a question about whether pro-transgender DEI programs will face heightened risk amid the administration’s broader attacks against trans and gender diverse communities, Conley pointed to provisions of Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
“That sort of set out this notion that it was the policy of the United States that there were only two sexes, male and female, and that federal funds shouldn’t be used to promote unlawful gender ideology, which seems specifically aimed at transgender individuals,” she said.
In practice, Conley said, “to the extent that an organization is receiving a federal grant, and that federal grant is being used in a way that the government [claims] is promoting unlawful gender ideology, then there’s a very real threat that that grant money will stop.”
Asked whether the administration may target a company for its financial, charitable support for trans people and causes, she noted that “some challenges that we’ve seen have been not to corporate giving, but to grants that were racially restrictive.”
“In the context of corporate giving,” though, “where you’re just talking about a gift—again, this is very fact specific, but if you’re just talking about a gift, then it’s hard to see how just a straight gift violates any federal civil rights laws,” Conley said.
She added, “An internship, a scholarship, something that’s reciprocal, something that is a contract, that’s a different analysis, right? But it is not, to my mind, nor have I ever seen a case suggesting that it’s illegal for organization X to write a $20,000 check to X civil rights organization.”
LGBTQ-focused nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations and charities are grappling with the loss of federal grant funding, particularly for overseas work. If the business community’s move away from DEI means declined corporate giving, these groups would struggle to continue their work, which includes efforts to push back against the administration’s attacks against LGBTQ and especially trans communities.
Courts will soon step in
Importantly, “all of these EOS are caught up in litigation right now,” Conley said, noting that parts of the DEI executive actions were struck down on Feb. 21 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down Trump’s executive orders restricting access to transgender medicine for patients younger than 19 and requiring trans women to be housed with cisgender men in prisons.
“I am watching closely to see what happens in the challenges to the DEI executive orders,” Conley said, noting that the Trump administration has already appealed the case, which “will go to the 4th Circuit pretty quickly.”
If the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in, “especially around the arguments that the executive order was unconstitutional because of the lack of clarity and guidance it gave to organizations about what violates the law in a way that wouldn’t allow them to comply, I’m watching that one, because it’ll be interesting to see how the 4th Circuit and maybe even the Supreme Court addresses that particular argument,” she said.
2026 Midterm Elections
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Referendum to take place April 21
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, has endorsed a Virginia ballot initiative that would allow the state to redraw its congressional districts this year, ahead of the 2030 Census.
Currently, Virginia’s Redistricting Commission — a legislative body made up of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — is responsible for redrawing congressional districts every 10 years following the Census. The proposed amendment would temporarily shift that authority to the Virginia General Assembly through 2030, before returning it to the commission in 2031.
Supporters say the push for the amendment comes in response to anti-democratic moves by several Republican-led state legislatures following demands from President Donald Trump, which have resulted in newly gerrymandered congressional maps that advocates argue disenfranchise pro-equality voters.
Under the proposed map in Virginia, Democrats could gain as many as four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections, when control of the narrowly divided House is up for grabs.
Six states — including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina on the GOP side — enacted new maps last year at Trump’s behest. The most significant Democratic counter-effort so far has come from California.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement backing the measure, encouraging Virginia voters who support democracy to vote “yes,” saying it would ensure “the will of the people is heard.”
“Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around. But anti-equality lawmakers around the country, in service to Donald Trump’s assaults on democracy, are trying to undermine our elections and engineer their preferred outcome in the midterms,” Robinson said. “The American people are ready to take Congress back from the anti-equality, anti-freedom politicians that have been abusing their power to hurt all our communities and bend government to the will of a wannabe king.”
U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th Congressional District that encompasses much of Washington’s suburbs, including Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, and parts of eastern Fairfax County — has also voiced support for the measure. He has called Trump’s attempts to influence elections ahead of the November midterms a “betrayal of our democracy,” emphasizing that while the fight is ongoing, this effort is a step toward correcting the situation.
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer said in an op-ed for the Cardinal News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is another staunch supporter of the amendment, arguing that it would, through bipartisan means, help counterbalance Trump’s efforts in what remains an uphill battle.
“As early voting begins tomorrow on Virginia’s redistricting amendment, voters should know that Virginia’s approach is different. It is temporary, directly responsive to what other states decide to do, and — most importantly — it preserves Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process for the future,” the first female governor of the state said in a statement. “I supported the formation of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020, and that support has not changed. What has changed is what we’re seeing in states across the country — and a president who says he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats before this year’s midterm elections.”
“Virginians have the opportunity to take action in response to this extraordinary moment in history,” she added. “That’s why, as a Virginia voter, I’m voting in favor of this amendment.”
Virginians for Fair Elections, the group responsible for marketing the initiative, has raised nearly $50 million dollars, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan organization focusing on sharing public documents related to financial matters of the state. The ads notably feature former President Barack Obama, who supports the measure and has hailed it as a way to “level the playing field.”
In a recent Politico article, a person close to the White House, granted anonymity, suggested the outlook for Trump’s governing majority is weakening — particularly following the unraveling of the Iran war — underscoring why the administration is pushing Republican-led states to maximize their advantage ahead of the midterms.
“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.
According to The Economist, Trump holds a 37 percent approval rating, with 56 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the presidency.
This is not the first time Virginia has held a special election for a statewide ballot initiative. Most recently, in 1956, voters approved a measure that led to the use of public funds to provide tuition grants for students attending nonsectarian private schools.
Early voting is already underway in the Old Dominion, with Election Day set for April 21.
Politics
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
President threatened to destroy Iranian civilization in Truth Social post
Following multiple brazen Truth Social posts this week related to the ongoing war with Iran — one which he said he could wipe out “a whole civilization,” — Democrats are seizing the opportunity to gain momentum in ousting President Donald Trump from office.
As the war with Iran continues to unfold, Trump appears increasingly frustrated — and willing — to use any means necessary to achieve his goals of ending the country’s nuclear capabilities, destroying its military, and ushering in regime change. So far, none of these goals have been met. As his frustration grows, so do calls to invoke a never-before-used safeguard for the nation—the 25th Amendment.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday morning. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
This came only days after Trump posted a now-deleted, expletive-filled demand for the country to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Easter Sunday, saying, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” On the same day, Trump told The Hill he would not rule out sending ground troops. And he told Fox News Sunday that he’s “considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil” if Iran doesn’t accept his deal.
The president then set a new deadline of 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday for Iran to reach a deal with the U.S., marking yet another extension, which did lead to a two-week ceasefire.
Since the president’s tirade, Democratic legislators in federal office have condemned his words, while Republicans are quietly standing behind him. Former Trump allies are among the loudest voices advocating for invoking the 25th Amendment, as some in international government organizations have sharply called Trump’s threats illegal.
“If there’s an attack on clearly civilian infrastructure, that is not allowed under international humanitarian law,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary-general, said last week.
That concern is heightened by the broader human rights landscape in Iran, where violations of international legal standards are already well documented — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ people.
Iran has some of the harshest laws in the world regarding LGBTQ rights, policies that human rights advocates say are themselves in violation of international law.
Under the country’s legal system, all sexual activity outside a traditional Islamic marriage is illegal, including same-sex relations. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is criminalized and, in some cases, punishable by death under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
With international officials raising concerns about the legality of Trump’s threats, the conversation in Washington has increasingly shifted from condemnation to potential consequences, namely, whether the 25th Amendment could be used to hold him accountable.
“Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which has never been invoked, allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries (or another body as Congress may provide) to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The vice president would then immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Although there seems to be momentum from Trump adversaries, this is unlikely, according to PolitiFact.
“For all of the partisan chatter, it is highly unlikely this legal procedure to remove a president will happen,” Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman wrote for the nonprofit political fact-checking website that is operated by the Poynter Institute.”Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet and the majority of Republicans in Congress.”
Delaware Congresswoman — and the first transgender legislator on Capitol Hill — Sarah McBride issued a statement in response to Trump’s words.
“In a political career defined by grotesque statements, this president’s horrifying, illegal, and genocidal threat this morning is among the most dangerous and appalling,” McBride said. “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military. Threats of war crimes and disregard for human life must be met with accountability under the law.”
She then, like many others, called for removing the president from office to protect the American people.
“Trump must go — and Republicans, whether in the Cabinet or Congress, must join Democrats in using any and all constitutional powers at our collective disposal to end this illegal war and take the gun out of this madman’s hands,” said McBride, the Congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus whip.
Mark Takano, the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire is only temporary, and does not ensure that Americans won’t be called to fight in a war they didn’t ask for.
“We heard no plan to end this war and no commitment to keep American boots out of Iran,” Takano said on X.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly gay member elected to the U.S. Senate, used her platform to remind Trump — and the world — that diplomacy remains critical.
“Diplomacy has always been the answer, which is why the president shouldn’t have gotten us into this war of choice,” a statement read on X. “It’s been reckless, cost U.S. soldiers their lives, and is raising prices on families. A ceasefire is a start, but Congress needs to do our jobs and end this war.”
“The House must pass articles of impeachment, and then the Senate must vote to convict and remove the President,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights wrote in a statement on X. “Or, the Cabinet and vice president, with congressional concurrence, must invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump.”
“Donald Trump’s instability is more clear and dangerous than ever,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Multiple other Democrats also called for removing the president for violating international and constitutional law. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for “this unhinged lunatic” to “be removed from office.” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said, “Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.” U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), told Midas Touch Journalist Scott MacFarlane “In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line.”
In addition to Democrats, some staunch Trump supporters have also been loudly criticizing the president’s handling of the Iran war.
Conspiracy theorist, former Trump confidant, and $1.3 billion defamation case loser for spreading far-right lies, Alex Jones, asked “How do we 25th Amendment his ass?” on Monday’s InfoWars show.
Georgia Republican, former member of the House of Representatives, and former high-profile MAGA ally Marjorie Taylor Greene called Trump’s post about destroying civilizations “evil and madness” and posted a simple “25TH AMENDMENT!!!”
The White House
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Country’s anti-LGBTQ record a reported barrier
Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for “special missions,” is making it known that he is interested in the Russian ambassadorship.
According to reporting by the Daily Mail, Grenell has “floated” his interest in the role to coworkers, but issues surrounding the former German ambassador’s sexuality have made securing the position more difficult.
“He had an interest in the job — or at least he floated the idea to select colleagues. But Putin’s regime is extremely anti–LGBTQ, so I’m sure they didn’t take that thought too seriously,” one source close to Grenell told the Daily Mail. “That would never happen anyway.”
Grenell has long been one of Trump’s closest allies and was the first openly gay person to hold a Cabinet-level position. He was ousted last month as acting director of the Kennedy Center, a position he had held since Trump reestablished the board to be composed of his political supporters in 2025.
In addition to leading the nation’s cultural arts center, Grenell previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 2018 to 2020, and as the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations from 2019 to 2021. He was also a State Department spokesperson to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor.
Russia has a longstanding history of being anti-LGBTQ.
In 2013, the country passed a law banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors. In December 2022, Putin signed legislation expanding the ban, making it illegal to promote same-sex relationships or suggest that non-heterosexual orientations are “normal” for people of any age, widening censorship across media and public life.
The Russian courts have also supported the restriction of LGBTQ identity in the country. In November 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court granted a request from the Justice Ministry to outlaw the “international LGBT movement” as “extremist,” allowing authorities to criminalize advocacy and potentially prosecute individuals for expressions of LGBTQ+ identity or support.
In addition to LGBTQ rights issues, the war between Russia and Ukraine has become a global concern. Ukraine, which was part of the former Soviet Union, includes the territory known as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. The annexation remains a major point of international dispute over sovereignty. Since 2022, Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine has escalated the conflict, drawing global attention and sanctions while straining U.S.-Russia relations.
The U.S. has spent $188 billion in total related to the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Russian ambassadorship seems to be a difficult role to fill, according to additional information presented by the Daily Mail. With Trump already being seen as relatively positive by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with close ties to members of his Cabinet and family — like son-in-law Jared Kushner — the ambassadorship is complicated and viewed as less critical than in previous administrations.
“There is no rush to fill that role because it has now been deemed unnecessary,” another source told the U.K.-based publication.
Bob Foresman, a seasoned businessman with decades-long ties to the Kremlin, was reportedly once the frontrunner, according to the Daily Mail. Foresman served as vice chair of UBS Investment Bank and Deputy Chairman of Renaissance Capital between 2006 and 2009, and earlier led investment banking for Russia at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein from 1997 to 2000.
“This is a pattern, especially in the Trump administration — special envoys big–footing the ambassadors,” a source told the Daily Mail. “It is shocking that we are already in April and we don’t have an ambassador to one of the most important countries in the world.”
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections5 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach5 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini5 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
National5 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
