Shortly after the January 2025 inauguration, the government embarked on a sweeping campaign to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the public and private sectors by characterizing DEI as “unlawful discrimination.” As a result of a series of executive orders (EO), consequential agency actions, and significant judicial decisions, 2025 was a year in which employers scrambled to keep up with the fast-paced updates and navigate evolving—and often, competing—obligations related to efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace.
In response, we created a series of timelines documenting DEI-related events with the most significant impact on private sector employers. Collectively, our 8-part series capture over 235 DEI-related events that employers should be aware of. This year-end summary highlights the past year’s most significant events, along with administrative and agency trends, which may provide valuable insight into what 2026 holds for private sector employers.
For a detailed discussion of all events, review our timelines below:
- Part I of our timeline HERE
- Part II of our timeline HERE
- Part III of our timeline HERE
- Part IV of our timeline HERE
- Part V of our timeline HERE
- Part VI of our timeline HERE
- Part VII of our timeline HERE
- Part VIII of our timeline HERE
DEI EXECUTIVE ORDERS
EO14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing) directs the federal government to terminate DEI programs, offices, policies, mandates, and related grants or contracts across federal agencies.
EO14168 (Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government) rejects the concept of “gender ideology,” declares that only two sexes exist (male and female), and directs federal agencies to interpret and enforce laws accordingly.
EO14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity) directs federal agencies to take “appropriate measures” to end “illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI” in the private sector; and revoked EO11246—a civil rights directive signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965—which required federal contractors and subcontractors to provide equal employment opportunities and take affirmative action.
- State Attorneys General respond: Sixteen state attorneys general issued a joint letter to emphasize that DEI best practices are important to “ensure legal compliance,” and to provide guidance on lawful DEI initiatives and best practices to support inclusion in a legally compliant manner. For details, see February 13 entry HERE.
- Former DOL Officials respond: Ten former U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) officials issued an open letter to the federal contractor community to clarify “options and obligations under the law,” and to provide recommendations to promote “lawful” DEI practices. For details, see April 15 entry HERE.
EO14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy) seeks to eliminate the validity of disparate impact liability under Title VII and other federal laws.
- Former EEOC and DOL Officials respond: A group of 10 former EEOC and DOL officials penned a letter clarifying that disparate impact analysis neither requires nor permits employers to establish a preference based on a protected characteristic, and advising employers to continue adhering to Title VII requirements. For details, see May 13 entry HERE.
ADMINISTRATIVE TRENDS & AGENCY ACTION
Law Firms: BigLaw became the first significant target of the administration’s anti-DEI campaign.
- Law Firm EOs: The administration issued EOs against several law firms for past actions and DEI initiatives, which threatened the loss of federal contracts and security clearances (Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey). While some firms successfully fought the EOs (Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey), other firms entered agreements to settle or avoid potential EOs (Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Wilkie Farr, Milbank).
- EEOC’s Law Firm Letter: The EEOC issued a letter to 20 BigLaw firms requesting information about their DEI-related employment practices, resulting in settlements with at least four firms to disavow DEI policies, practices, and programs. For details, see March 17 entry HERE.
Corporations: Federal agencies exerted their influence over several private corporations—the most notable of which includes the Federal Communications Commission’s overnight approvals of major deals involving Verizon and T-Mobile after each submitted letters affirming their commitment to eliminating DEI policies and programs. For details, see May 16 entry HERE.
Educational Institutions: The administration targeted DEI in higher education with civil rights investigations (Harvard, Columbia, Brown, George Mason, U of VA, U of CA), federal funding cuts, and settlement agreements to resolve allegations, restore funding, and avoid litigation (Columbia, Brown, U of VA).
LGBTQ+ Protections: The EEOC ordered staff to cease processing sexual orientation- and gender identity-based complaints, and to classify new claims to the lowest priority. The agency later directed staff to resume charge processing, but only for complaints involving employment-related issues (e.g., hiring, discharge, or promotion). For details, see July 1 entry HERE.
Disparate Impact: The EEOC directed its field offices to close all pending charges based solely on disparate impact discrimination by September 30, 2025. For details, see September 15 entry HERE.
AGENCY GUIDANCE
EEOC on “Unlawful DEI”: The EEOC released two technical assistance documents to provide guidance on “unlawful DEI-related discrimination.” The first document (What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work) clarifies when DEI policies and practices may be unlawful under Title VII. The second document (What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work) describes the application of Title VII to DEI initiatives. For details, see March 19 entry HERE.
- Former EEOC Officials respond: Ten former EEOC officials responded in a letter addressing (and criticizing) the guidance and providing a framework for “lawful ways to increase diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity” in the workplace. For details, see April 3 entry HERE.
DOJ on “Unlawful Discrimination”: The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance to federal funding recipients outlining “unlawful discriminatory policies and practices” that could “result in revocation of grant funding,” and “best practices” to avoid “unlawful discrimination.” For details, see July 29 entry HERE.
Religious Freedoms and Accommodations: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and DOJ issued guidance on religious freedoms and protections.
- OPM on Religious Accommodations: The OPM issued a memo to federal employers providing “guidance concerning the roles of leave and workforce flexibilities . . . as religious accommodations and the responsibilities of supervisors in facilitating these arrangements.” For details, see July 16 entry HERE.
- OPM on Religious Expression: The OPM issued a memo to federal agencies providing guidance on the right to religious expression in the workplace, and emphasizing that agencies must allow employees “to engage in private religious expression in work areas to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression.” For details, see July 28 entry HERE.
- DOJ on Religious Liberty: The DOJ released an advisory memo on religious liberty protections for federal employees under Title VII, stating that “situational telework can and should be used as a form of religious accommodation.” For details, see September 18 entry HERE.
SIGNIFICANT CASES
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al. v. Trump: The Fourth Circuit stayed an earlier preliminary injunction that blocked key components of EOs 14151 and 14173, allowing the government to once again enforce the termination provision, the certification provision, and the enforcement threat provision. For details, see HERE.
State of Texas and The Heritage Foundation v. EEOC, et al.: U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued an order vacating portions of the EEOC’s April 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace related to LGBTQ+ protections. For details, see May 15 entry HERE.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision eliminating the “background circumstances” rule, holding that “Title VII does not impose . . . a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs.” For details, see June 5 entry HERE.
Trump, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al.: The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal district courts likely do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions to block EOs. For details, see June 27 entry HERE.
Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump: U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly upheld the court’s April 14 nationwide preliminary injunction barring the DOL from enforcing EO14173’s certification provision. For details, see October 30 entry HERE.
EMPLOYER TAKEAWAYS
These events—which marked a fundamental shift in the federal government’s position on DEI initiatives—reshaped the DEI legal landscape for employers. As lawsuits challenging the legality of the DEI Executive Orders—as well as private sector DEI initiatives—continue to work their way through the courts, employers should expect more judicial guidance on what constitutes “illegal” DEI. In the meantime, given the EEOC’s recently restored quorum, we can expect to see more agency guidance on these issues. To prepare for increased scrutiny of DEI initiatives, employers can adopt compliance-aligned strategies by taking the following steps:
- Conduct a DEI legal risk audit;
- Schedule training for Executives, Board Members, and Managers on DEI Legal Issues; and
- Stay tuned for forthcoming installments of our DEI timelines.
If you have any questions related to any timeline events or its impact on your organization, or would like to conduct an audit of your organization’s efforts to ensure all employees and applicants are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace, please reach out to the NFC Attorney with whom you typically work or call us at 973.665.9100 or 619.292.0515.