H.R. 925 defines a ‘‘prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice’’ and then uses that definition to eliminate most federal DEI activity. The bill rescinds a set of recent Executive Orders and National Security Memoranda, orders agencies to close DEI offices, forbids use of federal funds for DEI offices and specified trainings, requires contracting and grant terms forbidding DEI practices, and directs OPM and OMB to revise or rescind guidance.
The bill matters because it replaces administrative discretion with statute: it rewrites the Civil Rights Act to add the DEI definition, establishes compliance duties across personnel systems, contracting, grants, accreditation, and advisory committees, and opens a broad private right of action with daily statutory damages and attorney’s fees — which significantly raises litigation and compliance stakes for agencies, contractors, grantees, colleges, and other institutions that interact with the federal government.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new statutory definition of ‘‘prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice’’ and then prohibits federal agencies, contractors, grant recipients, and advisory committees from engaging in those practices or using federal funds for DEI offices or trainings. It rescinds several Executive Orders and requires agencies to close or wind down covered offices or programs.
Who It Affects
Federal departments and agencies (OPM, OMB and agency heads), federal contractors and subcontractors, grant and cooperative agreement recipients, accrediting agencies, advisory committees, institutions of higher education (with carve-outs), and regulatory entities (financial regulators and self‑regulatory organizations).
Why It Matters
By codifying prohibitions and adding a private cause of action with statutory damages, the bill shifts enforcement from internal agency oversight to litigation and creates new compliance obligations and contractual clauses that will touch procurement, grant-making, workforce training, accreditation, and advisory processes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 925 begins by inserting a new definition into federal civil‑rights law: a ‘‘prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice’’ is conduct that either discriminates on protected characteristics or requires employees to accept that a race, sex, or other protected group is ‘‘inherently or systemically’’ superior/inferior, or to sign or assent to statements that say so. That definition is the linchpin — it converts certain common DEI trainings and workplace practices into statutorily banned conduct.
The bill immediately rescinds a named set of Executive Orders and National Security Memoranda related to equity, gender identity, and other DEI topics, and bars agencies from carrying them out. It then requires agency heads to close, terminate, and wind up programs or offices that carried out those directives; agencies must not reassign or redesignate affected employees into equivalent roles created to perform the same functions.
The statute directs deadlines (notably 90 days for closing offices and 180 days for OPM/OMB to revise guidance) and expressly preserves historically organized Equal Employment Opportunity offices and programs enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act.Beyond personnel, H.R. 925 restricts federal training and funding: federal funds cannot be used for DEI, critical‑theory, intersectionality, or sexual‑orientation/gender‑identity training that asserts inherent group superiority/inferiority. It amends federal personnel systems to prohibit adverse personnel or performance actions based on refusal to participate in such trainings or to assent to related statements.
For contracting and grants, the bill forces contract clauses (contracts over $10,000 and other procurements) and grant/cooperative‑agreement terms that bar recipients from using federal funds for covered DEI activity; however, recipients may use non‑federal funds if they choose.The bill extends the ban into several programmatic domains: it adds accreditation standards language to the Higher Education Act to prevent accreditors from conditioning recognition on DEI commitments; it directs regulators and self‑regulatory organizations to refrain from DEI requirements; it repeals or rescinds specific DEI offices and reporting requirements in agencies including elements of DoD, HUD‑related FHFA provisions, certain financial‑sector diversity offices, and intelligence workforce directives. Finally, H.R. 925 creates an express private cause of action: any person may sue for violations, and courts may award mandamus/declaratory relief, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and a statutory minimum of $1,000 per violation per day, among other relief.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Title XII to the Civil Rights Act defining a ‘‘prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice’’ that covers requiring training or assent asserting inherent or systemic group superiority/inferiority.
It rescinds seven named Executive Orders and two National Security Memoranda (including EO 13985, 13988, 14035, and NSM‑03/NSM‑04) and bars agencies from carrying them out.
Agencies must close covered DEI offices within 90 days and OPM/OMB must revise or rescind inconsistent guidance and programs within 180 days; OPM must terminate its ODEIA and related councils.
Federal contracts (explicit clause for contracts over $10,000) and grants/cooperative agreements must bar recipients from using federal funds for covered DEI offices, positions, or trainings; recipients may still use non‑federal funds.
The bill creates a private right of action with remedies including a Writ of Mandamus, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and a minimum statutory award of $1,000 per violation per day.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory definition of prohibited DEI practice
This section grafts a new definition onto the Civil Rights Act: a ‘‘prohibited diversity, equity, or inclusion practice’’ includes (1) discrimination on listed characteristics, and (2–3) conditioning employment, advancement, speaking, or submission of materials on completing training or signing statements that assert that a protected group is inherently/systemically superior/inferior or oppressed/oppressor. Practically, this turns many mandatory DEI trainings and signed commitments into conduct covered by federal civil‑rights law and creates the legal basis for the prohibitions and remedies throughout the bill.
Rescission and wind‑down of federal DEI programs; personnel protections
Section 101 lists the Executive Orders and National Security Memoranda that the bill revokes and bars agencies from implementing. Sections 102–103 require OPM and OMB to revise guidance and rescind prior materials tied to those EOs, terminate OPM's ODEIA and related councils, and rescind OMB Circular A‑4 (Nov. 9, 2023 version). Sections 104–106 forbid use of federal funds for DEI offices, councils, certain trainings, dashboards, and similar devices, and amend federal personnel statutes so agencies may not take personnel or appraisal actions against employees who refuse covered DEI trainings or assent to covered statements.
Government‑wide training ban and funding restrictions
The bill amends federal training authorities to prohibit development, purchase, or requirement of training that covers DEI, critical theory, intersectionality, or that requires asserting group superiority/inferiority. It also makes it unlawful to use federal funds to develop, distribute, or buy such courses. The practical consequence is that widely used centrally procured or agency training modules would need to be reviewed or removed.
Contracting prohibitions and required contract clauses
The bill inserts mandatory contract language for federal procurements (explicitly adding a clause for contracts exceeding $10,000) and a parallel clause for other procurements, forbidding performance by contractors who are subject to a prohibited DEI practice. It also makes use of federal funds by contractors for DEI offices, officers, or covered trainings impermissible, while leaving open contractor use of non‑federal funds.
Grant and cooperative agreement conditions
Heads of executive agencies must include terms in grants and cooperative agreements forbidding recipients from using federal funds for DEI offices, chief diversity officers, or prohibited trainings, with carve‑outs for EEO offices and ADA enforcement. The statute also explicitly preserves HBCU funding and allows recipients to use non‑federal funds for DEI activities if they choose.
Advisory committees and committee management
The bill amends the Federal Advisory Committee Act to bar advisory committees and their chairs, agency heads, and the Administrator from authorizing prohibited DEI practices. An Administrator or agency IG finding triggers a mandatory 30‑day termination of the advisory committee, and private litigation can seek court orders to terminate committees and recover statutory damages and fees.
Education, regulatory, and sectoral changes
This cluster changes accrediting standards language to prevent accreditors from conditioning recognition on DEI commitments, bars Secretary of Education funds for DEI offices and trainings, repeals certain DEI reporting and offices across agencies (including parts of DoD and intelligence directives), and directs financial regulators and national securities associations not to require DEI practices. The result is a cross‑sector rollback of formally organized DEI infrastructure tied to federal oversight or funding.
Enforcement, remedies, and severability
The bill opens a broad private cause of action to sue for violations of the Act and lists available remedies: mandamus/declaratory relief, minimum statutory damages set at $1,000 per violation per day, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. It also contains a standard severability clause to preserve remaining provisions if any part is struck down.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees who object to DEI trainings or compelled statements — the bill forbids adverse personnel or appraisal actions for refusing such training or assent, offering legal protection for objectors.
- Certain institutions with religious missions or those concerned about compelled ideology — the bill bars accreditors and federal program administrators from conditioning benefits on ideological commitments and explicitly protects religious institutions and HBCUs in specific provisions.
- Organizations opposed to government‑mandated DEI programs — by eliminating federal DEI offices, directives, and funding, the bill advances their preference for reducing government involvement in workplace ideology.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (OPM, OMB, program offices) — must revise guidance, close offices, undertake reductions‑in‑force, and absorb administrative costs and litigation exposure tied to compliance and wind‑down timelines.
- Federal contractors, grant recipients, and cooperative agreement partners — must add compliance language to agreements, stop using federal funds for many DEI activities, and face exposure to private lawsuits and contract enforcement risk if a covered practice is alleged.
- Accreditors and higher‑education compliance offices — must change standards and processes to avoid conditioning recognition or funding on DEI commitments; institutions may face accreditation reviews or disputes as standards are revised.
- Defense and national security recruiting and diversity programs — repeal of specified DoD diversity reporting and positions may disrupt ongoing workforce‑development and inclusion initiatives, with potential operational and recruiting consequences.
- Agencies facing private litigation risk — the $1,000 per‑violation‑per‑day minimum and attorney’s fees substantially raise the cost of litigation and incentivize high‑volume claims that could divert agency resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preventing coerced ideological compliance in the federal workplace and preserving the government’s ability to study, remedy, and communicate about group‑based disparities. The bill solves one problem — curbing certain trainings and statements officials view as ideological — but in doing so it risks removing tools agencies use to address unequal outcomes, while leaving open major questions about scope, enforcement incentives, and conflicts with existing anti‑discrimination law.
The bill is broad in scope but relies on a short statutory definition that mixes discrimination prohibitions with a ban on compelled assent to certain ideas. That creates interpretive questions: how do courts decide whether a training ‘‘asserts or requires’’ that a group is ‘‘inherently or systemically’’ superior/inferior?
Many standard anti‑bias modules present historical or structural analyses without asserting moral culpability — the boundary between permitted anti‑discrimination education and prohibited ‘‘critical‑theory’’ instruction is legally and factually uncertain.
Enforcement design raises further problems. The private right of action with a $1,000 per‑violation per‑day floor and broad remedies incentivizes litigation and could produce high damages exposure for even narrow administrative acts.
The statute directs agency deadlines (90/180 days) and bans transfers of affected personnel, which could produce workforce disruptions and potential challenges under statutes governing reductions in force and collective‑bargaining obligations. Finally, the bill preserves EEO and ADA offices ‘‘as historically organized and operated,’’ but does not define that phrase, and agencies will need to reconcile existing nondiscrimination obligations (including Title VII obligations to remedy disparate impact) with the new prohibitions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.