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
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
LGBTQ rights opponent will face Democrat James Talarico in November
Attorney General Ken Paxton won the Republican Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday, ousting incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
Paxton won the primary against the four-term incumbent in large part due to President Donald Trump’s endorsement. Despite Cornyn voting with Trump more than 90 percent of the time, political insiders say being supportive isn’t enough to win Trump’s endorsement anymore — Republican candidates need to embrace the full MAGA image, something Paxton has done.
Paxton has served as Texas attorney general since 2015 and, before that, worked as a Texas state representative. He has approached both roles with what LGBTQ activists call a “consistently Anti-LGBTQ+ Record.” Following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — the case that made same-sex marriage the law of the land — Paxton advised Texas county clerks they could refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds.
His anti-LGBTQ crusade doesn’t stop at fighting against marriage equality.
Paxton has repeatedly demanded medical records for transgender youth in multiple states — including Texas, Georgia, and Washington — in hopes of making the practice illegal. His anti-trans actions go far past medical records. Paxton issued an opinion barring trans Texans from changing the sex on their driver’s licenses and birth certificates, claiming any changes made were “unlawfully altered,” and helped the DOJ reach an agreement with a Texas’s children’s hospital for providing minors gender-affirming care, eventually leading to a 10 million dollar settlement. He also authored a non-legally binding opinion equating gender-affirming healthcare for youth to child abuse.
In addition to his long history of anti-LGBTQ policy in the Lone Star State, Paxton is no stranger to controversy.
Multiple impeachment efforts brought against him in the state House of Representatives for “abuse of office” — with the state Senate later acquitting him — allegations that he used his office to assist large campaign donors, namely Nate Paul, and a widely publicized separation from his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, all impacted his run for the U.S. Senate seat — but not enough to keep him from the office.
Lynne Bowman, vice president of campaigns at the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement following the announcement of Paxton’s primary win.
“Texans have a clear choice this fall, and an opportunity to reject failed policies that hurt all families,” Bowman sent to the Blade via email. “Ken Paxton is so out of step that he has fought to undercut marriage equality and spent time demanding personal medical records for young people who do not even live in Texas, all while becoming the most corrupt politician in America. The more than 2 million Equality Voters in Texas will send him packing.”
Paxton will face off against Democratic hopeful and vocal Trump critic James Talarico in the fall.
Talarico, who won the Democratic primary in April against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights, citing his ministry work as the source of his support for the community.
The race for Texas’s Senate seat will be decided on Nov. 3.
2026 Midterm Elections
Bree Fram’s congressional campaign ends but her fight continues
Former highest-ranking trans military member steps back from Va. congressional race
After being forced to retire, Bree Fram couldn’t stop. Restless even after giving everything she had to make the United States Air Force — and later the Space Force — better in every way she could, Fram quickly turned toward a new mission: public office.
The same tenacity that fueled her rise from Air Force researcher to the highest-ranking openly transgender officer in the United States Armed Forces would eventually carry her onto the campaign trail in Virginia.
Now, after months of campaigning, countless conversations with voters, and abrupt shifts in Virginia’s political landscape, Fram has stepped back from her congressional run.
Fram sat down with the Blade to discuss her decision to step away, what she learned on the campaign trail, and what comes next.
Earlier this month, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan that likely would have created multiple additional Democratic-leaning seats in the U.S. House. The ruling dramatically altered the district Fram had built her campaign around and left little time for candidates to adjust before voting began.
“That decision really was the end of my campaign, that there was not the chance after that ruling, particularly so late in the game, for me to meaningfully pivot back to a different district and have a conversation with voters with just five weeks to go until early voting started,” Fram said. “I do feel that the will of the people has been ignored over a technicality regarding the date of Election Day.”
For Fram, the ruling was not only politically devastating, but personally frustrating after months spent building relationships with voters and shaping a campaign around the district’s needs.
“What was incredibly disappointing about it was that none of the facts about the case had changed from the beginning of the year until when they made the ruling,” she said.
Still, Fram entered the race with a platform centered on affordability, government accountability, and protecting fundamental rights, pledging “to protect our rights, make opportunity affordable, and build a government that works for the people.”
That message focused heavily on affordability — one of the defining political issues of 2026 — and lowering costs for Virginians across ideological, geographic, and generational divides. Fram said voters responded warmly to that vision, even if it ultimately did not lead to an office in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill.
“The experience on the trail was fantastic. As a first-time candidate, you never know what you’re really getting yourself into, but any chance I had to get out there and talk with people was amazing,” Fram said. “I had the opportunity to change folks’ minds about trans people, about people from Northern Virginia.”
One conversation with a rural Virginia voter especially stayed with her.
“I called someone who runs a rural art shop… and he started talking about Democrats messaging on trans issues being such a problem,” Fram recalled. “And I’m like, do you know that you’re talking to one?”
Throughout the campaign, Fram said she often found herself breaking down preconceived notions about both transgender people and military service. The impact of that visibility became especially clear during another interaction on the trail that still stays with her.
“I had a young person, maybe 20 years old, come up to me. I could tell there was something on their mind,” Fram said. “I preempted them by saying ‘If you were about to ask if I’m trans, the answer is yes.’”
The young person, she said, appeared visibly relieved.
“As we made small talk I could tell there was something else he wanted to ask,” Fram continued. “Eventually they got it out– that they think they might be too.”
The moment quickly turned emotional.
“And then I asked, do you need a hug, they leaned in at first and then just hung on for dear life,” she said. “So what it means to our community to have that kind of representation out there, and to hopefully inspire others, was incredibly important.”
For Fram, those moments became some of the most meaningful parts of the campaign.
“My experience, I think, helped just shape what was our strategy,” she said.
The campaign also came at a uniquely difficult moment in Fram’s life. The Human Rights Campaign honored Fram alongside four other transgender military officials during a Jan. 8 event in Washington commemorating the forced retirement of transgender service members following President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Pentagon to prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving openly in the military.
Even while navigating the fallout from the discriminatory policy that forced her retirement, Fram launched a campaign rooted heavily in direct voter engagement and personal storytelling.
Her decades in the military, she said, fundamentally shaped how she approached campaigning and leadership.
“As an officer, particularly the more senior you become, you get more and more training on ‘what does it mean to match your ends’ ways and means,’” Fram said. “My end goal was get into office … and constantly reassess what it looks like.”
Fram also said her military background informed her progressive politics more than many voters expected.
“My military background was interesting, because I was running as the progressive candidate,” she said. “People think you were in the military, how can you possibly be the progressive person?”
Her answer, she said, often surprised people.
“Well, where did you think I learned this stuff?” Fram said. “No matter who we were at the same rank, no matter what our job was, we all got paid the same. We all had government-provided health care where we never needed to worry about a medical bill.”
For Fram, and those who talked with her on the trail, military service reinforced the idea that good governance allows people to thrive.
“You actually learn a lot about progressive policies and good governance that lets people be their best self in the military,” she said. “We understand that military officers’ oaths don’t expire when their time in uniform does, and I think that resonated with a lot of people, that veterans can be part of the solution in getting us out of the situation that we are in today.”
Before launching her campaign, Fram built one of the most extensive careers of any openly transgender military officer in U.S. history, serving in senior leadership roles across the Air Force, Space Force, and intelligence community.
Most recently, she served as chief of the Requirements Integration Division at Headquarters, Space Force, after previously leading acquisition policy for the Air Force’s space programs. Earlier in her career, she oversaw advanced weapons and cyberspace programs at the Air Force Research Laboratory, managed billions in foreign military sales and intelligence-related operations, worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative fellow, and directed major engineering and national security programs at the National Reconnaissance Office.
Fram also co-led the Department of the Air Force’s LGBTQ+ Initiatives Team and deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She holds a master’s degree from the Air Force Institute of Technology and is a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College.
Despite stepping away from the race, Fram said she remains optimistic about the future.
“When I look at the big picture of what we did and how we ran a campaign, that is what I’m most proud of,” she said. “It really is the strategy that my team and I were able to craft, the messaging that we were able to share, that was all about connecting our personal story, the story of America to something that says we need a vision of what can be.”
Fram rejected the idea that ending her congressional campaign means ending her public life altogether.
“I can absolutely guarantee that I will not get off the stage. It is just a question of what stage or stages do I jump to,” she said.
She also encouraged LGBTQ people — especially transgender Americans — to stay politically engaged despite increasingly hostile rhetoric and legislation nationwide.
“Just do it,” Fram said. “It is incredibly important to show at every level that people can engage with the political process and make a meaningful difference.”
Congress
Eight Democrats break with party as House advances ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill
Measure not expected to pass in Senate
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a federal “Don’t Say Trans” bill on Wednesday, attempting to force teachers to out transgender students nationwide.
The bill, House Resolution 2616, also called the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act,” would require schools to get parental consent before allowing students to use their preferred, rather than originally assigned, gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form, and to use any sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
The bill amends Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, legislation that allows for federal aid to help elementary and secondary education programs — particularly those under its lowest-income Title I-A program — to stop allocating funds to any education that teaches concepts “related to gender ideology.”
This is directly related to Executive Order 14168, also known as the “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” order, one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders of his second term. It requires the federal government to recognize only sex assigned at birth and dismiss gender identity rather than sex.
The bill was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and passed by a 217-198 margin. The vote fell mostly along party lines; however, eight Democrats voted for its passage. They were U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Eugene Vindman (D-Va.).
Proponents of the bill argue a child’s gender identity should be directed by parents at home rather than in public schools.
Critics say this is dangerous and will force students to be outed by their teachers to parents — some of whom may not be supportive of their gender identity — which could lead to violence or possibly conversion therapy.
California Congressman Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, spoke on the House floor while the bill was being debated.
“Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they have no problem bringing the full force of the federal government down against children. The GOP thinks they can legislate transgender people out of existence with this inhumane Don’t Say Trans bill, but all they’re doing is making life worse for a small minority of already-vulnerable children,” Takano said. “I spent 24 years as an educator where I worked with hundreds of high school students and their parents. Most children go to their parents when they need help or are struggling — including transgender children — but not all parents are accepting. The forced outing provision of this bill puts teachers in an impossible situation by requiring them to out trans kids to their parents in certain situations — even if the teacher knows the student will likely face physical abuse. Students like these are who Republicans want to put in immediate physical danger with this bill.”
The Washington Blade talked to Tyler Heck, founder and executive director of the trans advocacy organization and Christopher Street Project PAC, following the bill’s passage.
“Most queer kids go to their families when they are figuring out who they are, and then not all queer kids have that option,” Heck told the Blade. “If this became law, it would harm those already vulnerable kids who rely on school as a safe place and might not have a safe place at home.”
They explained this is not about protecting parents’ rights to know what is going on with their children, but rather the weaponization of trans identity that has become a mainstream Republican ideal pushed by the Trump-Vance administration.
“Young people deserve the space to figure out who they are without the federal government interfering in their lives,” they said. “It is beyond the pale, or rather it should be beyond the pale, and has become a norm for Republicans in Congress to villainize kids, because I mean, this bill targets kids, it’s in the name of the bill, and it’s in the implications.”
Heck continued, saying that amid the rising cost of everyday necessities — from gas to groceries — and while the Trump-Vance administration continues to defund programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans while creating slush funds for political allies, this is not what Congress should be focusing on.
“At a time when people are really struggling, and politicians need to be focused on lowering costs, they’re using queer and trans kids as political pawns,” Heck said. “They want to divide and conquer this country, and we need to stand up against them and unite behind values of inclusion and of trust in our teachers.”
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, provided a statement to the Blade.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. HR 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’ll continue to fight to ensure it never becomes law.”
The bill will move to the U.S. Senate in the coming days and weeks, but it must first be reviewed by a Senate committee before leadership schedules it for a floor vote, where it will need 60 votes to pass.
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Man accused of threatening to shoot D.C. bar employee after making anti-gay slurs
Bree Fram’s congressional campaign ends but her fight continues
