The executive order, issued Tuesday, directs federal civil probes into private-sector diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, including those run by state and local bar associations, medical organizations, universities, nonprofits, and publicly traded companies. Trump’s directive alleges that such initiatives may “constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.”
In a statement on Wednesday, the State Bar of California, the nation’s largest with over 197,000 active members, affirmed that its diversity programs would remain unaffected, stating, “None of our work in this space involves illegal discrimination or preferences.” Similarly, Massachusetts Bar Association President Victoria Santoro defended the organization’s DEI efforts, emphasizing their compliance with the law and adding, “I think there are better ways our federal government could use its time than looking at bar associations.”
This executive order represents an escalation in Trump’s broader campaign to curtail DEI initiatives in both public and private sectors. Conservatives have increasingly scrutinized legal diversity programs since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to prohibit the use of race in college admissions.
Edward Blum, the conservative activist behind the Supreme Court’s affirmative action case, supported Trump’s order, claiming it could compel bar associations to eliminate race and sex quotas for board positions, potentially avoiding “further state-by-state legal challenges to these unfair and illegal policies.”
Bar associations, which serve as advocates for attorneys and often oversee licensing and discipline, have emerged as prominent proponents of diversity. They have launched initiatives to promote women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ lawyers, and other underrepresented groups. Despite these efforts, white attorneys still account for 77% of the profession, compared to 60% of the U.S. population, according to the American Bar Association (ABA).
While some bar associations maintain programs to place diverse law students in internships, provide scholarships, and organize diversity job fairs, these initiatives have faced increasing legal challenges. In 2024, the ABA revised its judicial clerkship program criteria, removing explicit references to “minority students” after facing accusations of illegal racial quotas. Similarly, the State Bar of Wisconsin altered its diversity programs following a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Prominent law firms have also faced scrutiny. Winston & Strawn and Morrison & Foerster revised their diversity fellowship application criteria in 2023 after lawsuits filed by Edward Blum.
The ABA, with about 150,000 members and federal recognition as the accreditor of U.S. law schools, has prioritized diversity and inclusion as part of its mission, making it a frequent target of the anti-DEI movement. Attorneys general from 21 Republican-led states have warned the ABA that its law school accreditation standards promoting diversity are unlawful.
Some DEI rollbacks have occurred without litigation. In 2023, the Florida Bar ended all diversity initiatives after the state’s Republican-led Supreme Court barred funding for such programs, citing the need for impartiality.
This ongoing pushback highlights a growing divide over the role of DEI in the legal profession and PL