Enforcement of President Trump’s DEI Executive Order: A strategic roadmap for companies targeted for investigation and enforcement

Federal agencies have been enforcing President Trump’s Executive Orders, with various federal and state government agencies mobilizing to carry out Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (EO). That EO will affect diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and accommodation and affirmative action policies, practices, and programs in the federal government and private sector.

On March 15, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a Maryland District Court’s preliminary injunction order enjoining the federal government from enforcing certain provisions of the DEI EO, as well as EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” While litigation continues, companies could see robust enforcement targeting “DEI practices.”

Below, we discuss the current enforcement landscape; actions for companies to consider during the 120-day period until May 20, 2025, when Attorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to provide additional guidance on methods to enforce the DEI EO; and steps to consider if your company receives notice of an investigation.

A “whole-of-government” approach to enforcement

In recent years, various administrations have sought to advance their policy objectives by taking a “whole-of-government” approach to enforcement. President Donald Trump’s DEI EO directs the Attorney General and all federal agencies “to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

With the Maryland District Court preliminary injunction stayed, the government can enforce the DEI EO by:

• Terminating equity-related grants or contracts, as well as all DEI performance requirements for government employees, federal contractors, or recipients of federal grants


• Requiring federal contractors and grantees to certify that they do not operate any “illegal DEI” in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, and


• Pursuing enforcement actions including False Claims Act cases.

The government can also continue to investigate companies for “illegal DEI” policies and practices.

Various agencies already are mobilizing to combat what the administration views as “illegal DEI.” For example:

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced multiple investigations into private companies for alleged actions in violation of the DEI EO.


• The Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled that it will have an increased role in antidiscrimination enforcement.


• Attorney General Bondi’s February 5, 2025 memorandum, titled, “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences,” states that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division “will investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”


• The memorandum directs the Civil Rights Division and DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy to jointly submit a report that identifies “[k]ey sectors of concern” and “[t]he most egregious and discriminatory DEI and DEIA practitioners” within these sectors, stating that they must devise a plan for enforcing civil rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including “proposals for criminal investigations” and civil compliance investigations.


• Attorney General Bondi also signaled the potential for the DOJ to engage in additional litigation activities (eg, interventions in pending cases), as well as possible regulatory action or guidance.


• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is pursuing enforcement activity.


• An EO dated March 6, 2025 focused on a specific law firm directed the Chair of the EEOC to review “the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including whether large law firms: reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.” In turn, the EEOC announced on March 17, 2025 that it had issued letters to 20 law firms noting concerns with their DEI practices and seeking detailed information.

Other federal agencies (eg, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services) can similarly investigate alleged illegal DEI practices in their sector and wield significant power to compel testimony, compel the production of documents, and impose monetary penalties.

The ramifications of civil compliance investigations and enforcement could be sprawling. The DEI EO requires each federal agency to “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 1 billion dollars.” Investigations may also stem from a complaint, whistleblower report, audit, or other means such as media reports or claims raised in third-party lawsuits. Indeed, the FCC referenced a “whistleblower report” obtained by conservative activists as one source of its information as to the illegal DEI practices it seeks to combat through its most recent enforcement action.

In addition, the review process directed by the DEI EO could trigger collateral investigations. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has pursued enforcement actions based on false or misleading statements about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors and could rely on similar theories to target disclosures related to corporate DEI programs and initiatives. This is in addition to the risk of class action lawsuits alleging that companies misled investors about financial risks linked to ESG and DEI initiatives in violation of federal securities laws.

Further, several state Attorneys General have also voiced support for the DEI EO and demonstrated an intent to use their authority under state law to advance its principles. For example, on January 27, 2025, a group of 19 Attorneys General issued a letter to a national retailer to protest its DEI policy. In their letter, the Attorneys General suggested the retailer’s DEI practices might violate state and federal law and demanded the company repeal its DEI policy in 30 days or give an explanation.

In sum, President Trump’s EOs on DEI and agency actions to date indicate that rooting out “illegal DEI” will likely be a top priority. Expected enforcement efforts are likely to include civil compliance investigations, civil litigation, regulatory actions, and potential criminal investigations and related criminal cases (where applicable) that will not only be brought by DOJ civil trial attorneys and prosecutors, but will also include the governing regulating agencies for a particular industry or sector. To the extent the DOJ pursues criminal investigations, those could involve more powerful law enforcement tools than civil subpoenas or civil investigative demands, including the use of grand jury subpoenas or other legal process, and, in more extreme instances, search warrants to obtain email communications or to search premises.

Actions to consider

Given this wide-ranging potential regulatory exposure, during the 120-day period until Attorney General Bondi provides the anticipated enforcement recommendations (and until a final resolution of pending litigation), companies and other entities subject to the DEI EO are encouraged to:

• Assess their specific risk through a systematic review of their internal and external DEI policies and programs and implement desired changes accordingly. Consider retaining counsel to conduct a privileged compliance audit (to the extent allowed by applicable law). See our related guide, Assessing risk under President Trump’s DEI Executive Order: A strategic roadmap for private employers and federal contractors, for more information.


• Monitor for new developments, including enforcement actions, announcements, and activity by federal agencies (including those relevant to your company’s sector), litigation, and public resolutions and settlements.


• Prepare to take appropriate steps in the event of an inquiry or investigation. Actions to consider include:


• Preserving evidence. Upon receiving a demand for documents or if litigation is expected, ensure that a tailored litigation hold is in effect and any routine purging of data is promptly suspended. If your company receives a request for information, a subpoena, or other demand for information or documents, consider working with experienced outside counsel to quickly identify and preserve data (hopefully within the subset of data you have already analyzed from the perspective of the EO’s directives on DEI).


• Engaging with the regulator. Consider consulting with counsel upon receipt of a subpoena or other demand and evaluate whether immediate engagement with the regulator is advisable to demonstrate a cooperative posture, build credibility, and potentially obtain information about the investigation. Early engagement could:


• Provide an opportunity to limit the scope and reach of the compulsory process and educate the government lawyers on what is realistic and practical for production. Consider carefully documenting the usual give-and-take around burden, cost, and proportionality so that there is a clear record on the precise parameters of any agreement.


• Help to assess the government’s prosecution theory and strategy; the source, nature, and strength of the evidence available to the government; the posture of any potential legal action; and the government’s appetite to engage in full-scale litigation, among others. This engagement could be particularly prudent in instances where a qui tam action has been filed and the government is assessing whether or not to intervene.


• Provide direction on the best approach and scope for the fact investigation, document collection, and preparation of written interrogatories.


• Prioritizing and rolling production. Consider whether certain categories of documents can be prioritized for early production. This could engender goodwill and provide the company time to negotiate the scope of the subpoena and understand the government’s investigation.


• Lobbying for limited scope/declination. As companies learn more through the fact gathering process, counsel can help to assess whether an affirmative disclosure or presentation to the regulator is desirable to encourage the agency to limit or close its inquiry or, in the case of qui tam False Claims Act matter, to dissuade the agency from intervening in the action.

For more information

If you have questions about developments related to President Trump’s DEI EO or related developments, please contact any of the authors or your DLA Piper relationship attorney. For more information on President Trump’s EOs and other federal developments, see our President Trump Executive Orders topic hub.