Project 2025 will dismantle the civil rights tools that people living in the United States have relied on for decades to create a fairer and more inclusive society and economy, and eliminate federal policies and practices that help ensure equal opportunities for Black people. These proposals, from ending data collection on race to weakening the government’s ability to fight discrimination, will frustrate efforts to remedy racial inequality. Opponents of civil rights are already working to turn these proposals into reality.
In terms of civil rights enforcement, Project 2025 will harm Black communities by:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged with investigating and prosecuting employment complaints, collects data from large employers and federal contractors on the race and gender composition of their workforces.2 These disclosures make it harder for employers to hide discrimination and help civil rights enforcement agencies identify organizations that may be violating the law. Project 2025 will weaken the federal government’s ability to identify and fight employment discrimination by preventing the collection of race and gender data.3
From access to clean water to fair employment conditions, federal agencies touch nearly every aspect of our daily lives. The importance of a politically independent federal workforce that represents the full range of talent in the country cannot be overstated. The federal government is the country’s largest employer, with more than two million employees total from every state and territory.4 The federal government also employs a higher percentage of Black people than the civilian workforce.5 Despite this greater representation in the government workforce, Black federal workers are still less likely to hold senior positions than they are in the private sector.6 Federal agencies operate programs to help ensure a fair workplace and proactively prevent employment discrimination, such as initiatives that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). These programs can serve as models for the private sector.7
Project 2025 proposes eliminating federal DEIA programs, which will make it harder for the federal government to meet its civil rights obligations and deter private employers from implementing similar programs.8 Project 2025 will also strip an estimated 50,000 federal employees9 of their rights and make it easier to replace these nonpartisan experts with political appointees who would do what future presidents want, regardless of whether it is good policy.10
Federal law prohibits employers and recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, or disability status. These laws and regulations prohibit both disparate treatment (explicitly treating people differently based on race or other protected characteristics) and disparate impact (policies or practices that appear neutral but result in an unjustifiable discriminatory effect).11 Disparate impact claims also play “a role in uncovering discriminatory intent” by permitting “plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”12 This is particularly important as bad actors have become better at concealing discrimination and discriminatory motives.
Project 2025 will also dismantle the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs—the federal agency that ensures taxpayer dollars do not go to discriminatory contractors—and repeal Executive Order 11246, which prohibits most federal contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.14 Furthermore, Project 2025 calls for the federal government to eliminate civil rights protections for entire communities by removing prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics in employment, education, and federally funded programs.15 These proposals will collectively make it more challenging to root out discrimination faced by Black LGBTQ+ people.
LDF’s complaint argues that cancellation of the Baltimore Red Line and diversion of transportation funds to highway and other projects outside the city has a disparate impact on Black communities in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1971, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power, which transformed our nation’s workplaces. As a result of LDF’s advocacy, the Supreme Court embraced a powerful legal tool now known as the “disparate impact” framework.
Discrimination based on race and gender remains a persistent problem in the United States, and the EEOC consistently receives more complaints alleging race and gender discrimination each year than it does for discrimination based on other protected characteristics.16 Yet Project 2025 directs the EEOC to reorient its enforcement priorities and limit its investigations of alleged race and gender discrimination even though they are the most common complaints.17 In addition, Project 2025 calls on the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the EEOC to investigate and prosecute state and local governments, colleges, universities, and private employers that have policies and practices intended to advance racial equity, including trainings to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.18 Several state attorneys generali have similarly threatened legal action against employers19 and higher education institutions that seek to promote equity,20 and legal organizations that oppose civil rights have argued that programs aimed at remedying discrimination harm white men.21 Project 2025 will turn civil rights enforcement on its head by targeting programs designed to increase equal opportunity.
iEach state has an attorney general, which is typically an elected position. State attorneys general are states’ chief legal officers and are responsible for enforcing both state and federal laws, including the U.S. and state constitutions.
One of the most important tools in civil rights enforcement is the ability to challenge disparate impact discrimination by employers, federal funding recipients, and other actors. In a 1971 case brought by LDF, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., a group of Black workers sued their employer for racial discrimination, claiming that the company imposed unnecessary requirements that disproportionately excluded Black workers from certain jobs, even though the company did not explicitly consider race. In Griggs, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that, “not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation” violate federal law unless those practices are justified by a legitimate purpose.22 Duke Power’s requirements created an unlawful disparate impact because they operated “as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups” and were “unrelated to measuring job capability.”23 Subsequent Supreme Court decisions and guidance by federal agencies have likewise found that other civil rights statutes also prohibit policies that have a disparate racial impact.24
In the decades since the Supreme Court decided Griggs, Black communities and the federal government have used disparate impact claims to challenge numerous discriminatory policies, including: inequitable disaster recovery funding;25 unequal access to water, sanitation,26 and transportation;27 disproportionate exposure to environmental harms;28 and employment restrictions based on past arrests and convictions.29 Federal agencies have also provided guidance explaining how emerging practices violate the law, such as employers’ use of algorithmic decision-making tools30 (e.g., resume screening tools using artificial intelligence) that disproportionately exclude Black applicants and workers without justification.
In order to comply with their nondiscrimination obligations, many organizations have voluntarily adopted policies and practices that seek to recruit, retain, and support talented individuals of all backgrounds. Research has shown that dedicated DEIA teams,31 mentoring programs,32 and other efforts can counteract unfair barriers that often exclude qualified Black employees. These programs play an essential role in mitigating the risk of future discrimination and harassment, by ensuring that current policies do not “‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.”33 Similarly, DEIA initiatives such as affinity groups, mentorship programs, and programs that offer opportunities for students to connect with faculty and staff have improved academic outcomes in postsecondary education, such as re-enrollment in classes and graduation rates.34 Researchers have also found that educator diversity results in improved reading and math skills, as well as lowered absenteeism and suspension rates for students of color. 35
Nevertheless, the United States has yet to achieve the goal of a society in which educational and employment opportunities are equally open to all. As discussed in more detail in later sections, Black students continue to experience discrimination that limits their ability to access educational opportunities and succeed in pre-kindergarten through high school and higher education institutions.36 A recent study found that one in five Black students experiences discrimination on college and university campuses, and Black students attending the least racially diverse schools experience discrimination most frequently.37 Moreover, Black workers are overrepresented in dangerous jobs with worse pay and fewer benefits.38 Even as the number of Black people with college degrees has increased in the past twenty years, Black people continue to work in lower-wage jobs and less-lucrative industries than white people with similar levels of education.39 More than one in four Black women work in the lowest-wage jobs, such as childcare, housekeeping, and social work.40 Black people also experience unemployment at a rate twice as high as that of white people—and face higher unemployment rates when compared to white workers with the same educational attainment, skills, or residential location.41 Given these ongoing disparities, it is unsurprising that, in Fiscal Year 2023, the EEOC received more than 81,000 employment discrimination complaints.42 More than a third of these complaints were for race discrimination, and an additional thirty percent were for gender discrimination.43
Tools such as workforce data collection requirements, disparate impact liability, and DEIA programs remain vital to ensure that Black people have equal access to opportunities. Project 2025 will roll back these advancements and thereby permit employers, schools, and other entities that receive federal taxpayer dollars to discriminate. Moreover, it proposes using federal enforcement tools to attack state and local governments, employers, and other private parties that are trying to remove barriers to opportunity in their own institutions. Under Project 2025’s policy agenda, Black communities—particularly those in the South—will be vulnerable to abuses from people and institutions with the most economic and political power. In the face of these attacks, all Americans must redouble their commitment to achieving an economy and society where everyone can succeed and where thriving is the standard.
The foundation of a thriving multi-racial democracy is a society in which high-quality education, good jobs, and economic mobility are available to all—regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected characteristics. All Americans benefit from workplaces and institutions where everyone is valued and can contribute their skills and perspectives. Talent is everywhere; policymakers must ensure that opportunity is, too.
Importantly, removing barriers for Black people and other historically marginalized groups increases opportunities for all. Closing racial gaps in wages and access to financial and educational resources will help grow the economy. Due to discrimination, since 2000 the United States has lost out on $16 trillion in goods and services.44 As the nation becomes increasingly diverse,45 creating an inclusive and equitable society is an even greater moral and economic imperative.
1 Tex. Dep’t of Hous. And Cmty. Affs. V. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/06/25/tdhcainclusiveopinion.pdf.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 1602.7-1602.14, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1602.
3 Paul Dans & Steven Groves, eds., Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, Heritage Found. ( [hereinafter Project 2025], https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf.
4 Ben Leubsdorf & Carol Wilson, Current Federal Civilian Employment by State and Congressional District at 1, Cong. Rsch. Serv. Rep. R47716 1 (Sept. 22, 2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47716/1.
5 Gov’t Accountality. Off., Federal Workforce: Data Reveal Minor Demographic Changes 2011-2021 at 6 & Fig. 2 (Nov. 2023), https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24105924.pdf.
6 U.S. Off. Pers. Mgmt., Government-wide DEIA: Our Progress and Path Forward to Building a Better Workforce for the American People 5 (2022), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility/reports/DEIA-Annual-Report-2022.pdf.
7 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Strategic-Plan-to-Advance-Diversity-Equity-Inclusion-and-Accessibility-in-the-Federal-Workforce-11.23.21.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
8 Project 2025 at 358, 582.
9 Donald Moynihan, The Risks of Schedule F for Administrative Capacity and Government Accountability, Brookings (Dec. 12, 2023), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-risks-of-schedule-f-for-administrative-capacity-and-government-accountability/.
10 Project 2025at 79-81.
11 Tex. Dept. of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015).
12 Id. at 521.
13 Project 2025 at 335, 583.
14 Id. at 583-84.
15 Id. at 333-334.
16 Enforcement and Litigation Statistics, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, tbl. E1a, https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement-and-litigation-statistics-0.
17 Project 2025 at 587.
18 Id. at 582-83, 561-62.
19 Letter from Attorneys General of 13 States to Fortune 100 CEOs (July 13, 2023), https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/AGLetterFortune100713.pdf.
20 Mem. from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (June 30, 2023), https://woub.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AG-memo-on-Supreme-Court-ruling.pdf; Letter from Attorneys General of 21 States to Council of the American Bar Association (June 3, 2024), https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2024/pr24-47-letter.pdf.
21 E.g. Am. All. for Equal Rts. v. Fearless Fund Management, LLC, No. 23-12138 (11th Cir June 3, 2024), https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202313138.pdf.
22 . Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1970).
23 Id. at 432.
24 Inclusive Cmtys., 576 U.S. at 521; Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 232 (2005); e.g. 34 CFR 100.3(b)(2).
25 Letter from Christina Lewis, Region VI Dir., Off. of Fair Hous. And Equal Opp. to Tex. Gen. Land Off. Finding Noncompliance with Title VI and Section 109 (Mar. 4, 2022), https://texashousers.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/HUD-Letter-Finding-Noncompliance-with-Title-VI-and-Section-109-.pdf.
26 Complaint Letter Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from Nat’l Res. Def. Council et al., to U.S. EPA (Mar. 6, 2023), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/creej-nrdc-title-vi-complaint-20230306.pdf.
27 Case: Baltimore Red Line Light Rail Cancellation Federal Complaint (Feb. 16, 2018), Legal Def. Fund, https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/baltimore-red-line/.
28 U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., Letter to City of Chicago Finding Noncompliance with Title VI and Section 109 (July 19, 2022), https://www.fairhousingnc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Letter-of-Finding-05-20-0419-City-of-Chicago.pdf.
29 EEOC Sues Sheetz, Inc. For Racially Discriminatory Hiring Practice, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n (Apr. 18, 2024), https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice.
30 Select Issues: Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, (May 18, 2023), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/select-issues-assessing-adverse-impact-software-algorithms-and-artificial?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=.
31 Alexandra Kalev, et al., Best Practices or Best Guesses? Diversity Management and the Remediation of Inequality, 71 Am. Socio. Rev. 589 (2006), https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/Dobbin_best_practices.pdf.
32 Frank Dobbin, et al. Diversity Management in Corporate America, 6 Contexts 21 (2007), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.4.21; Emilio Castilla, Social Networks and Employee Performance in a Call Center, 110 Am. J. of Socio. 1243 (2005), https://web.mit.edu/~ecastill/www/publications/Castilla(AJSMarch202005).pdf.
33 Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430.
34 Tammie Cumming, et al., DEI Institutionalization: Measuring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Postsecondary Education, 55 Change: The Mag. of Higher Learning 31 (2023); Momoh Sekou Dudu, Impact of Targeted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives on the Retention and Graduation Rates of Students of Color at Community Colleges (2023) (Ph.D. dissertation, Hamline University), https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hsb_all/26.
35 Desiree Carver-Thomas, Learning Poly’ Inst., Diversifying the Teaching Profession: How to Recruit and Retain Teachers of Color (Apr. 2018), https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Diversifying_Teaching_Profession_REPORT_0.pdf.
36 Legal Def. Fund, Written Testimony of Jin Hee Lee Submitted to H. Higher Educ. & Workforce Dev. Subcomm. of the U.S. H.R. Educ. And Workforce Comm., (Mar. 7, 0224), https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/LDF-Testimony-of-Jin-Hee-Lee-for-House-Ed-and-Workforce-Hearing-on-DEIA38.pdf.
37 Camille Lloyd & Courtney Brown, One in Five Black Students Report Discrimination, GALLUP (Feb. 9, 2023), https://news.gallup.com/poll/469292/one-five-black-students-report-discrimination-experiences.aspx.
38 Rebecca Dixon & Amy Traub, Desegregating Opportunity: Why Uprooting Occupational Segregation Is Critical to Building a Good-Jobs Economy 1, Nat’l Emp. Law Project (May 2024), https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Desegregating-Opportunity-May-2024.pdf.
39 Ashley Jardina, et al., The Limits of Educational Attainment in Mitigating Occupational Segregation Between Black and White Workers, 9 (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Res., Working Paper No. 31641, Aug. 2023), https://doi.org/10.3386/w31641.
40 Kemi Role & Shayla Thompson, Nat’l Emp. Law Project, Purpose & Resistance: Black Women Workers Confronting Occupational Segregation (Apr. 2024), https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2024/04/NELP-Report-Black-Women-Workers-Confront-Occupational-Segregation-4-2024.pdf.
41 Algernon Austin, Ctr. for Econ. & Pol’y Rsch., The Continuing Power of White Preferences in Employment Aug. 1, 2023, https://cepr.net/report/the-continuing-power-of-whitepreferences-in-employment/.
42 EEOC Enforcement and Litigation Statistics, supra note 16, Table E1a.
43 Id.
44 Dana M. Peterson & Catherine L. Mann, Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps: The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S., Citi Glob. Persp. & Sols 7 (2020), https://www.citigroup.com/global/insights/citigps/closing-the-racial-inequality-gaps-20200922.
45 Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census Bureau Projections Show a Slower Growing, Older, More Diverse Nation a Half Century from Now (Dec. 12, 2012), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html; Matt Lavietes, Nearly 30% of Gen Z Adults Identify as LGBTQ, National Survey Finds, NBC NEWS (Jan. 24, 2024), https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nearly-30-gen-z-adults-identify-lgbtq-national-survey-finds-rcna135510.
