An article fromDive Brief 20 attorneys general sue Trump administration over federal contractor DEI order

The plaintiffs argue the president’s March executive order impedes each state’s efforts and is unclear in what it prohibits.

Published June 15, 2026Caroline Colvin Reporter

• Share
  • Copy link
  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • X/Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Print
• License
• Add us on Google

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the White House on March 31, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Earlier that month, Trump signed another order cracking down on diversity, equity and inclusion programs run by federal contractors, which prompted a lawsuit from 20 attorneys general on June 10, 2026. Alex Wong via Getty Images

First published on

Listen to the article 3 min This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback. Dive Brief:

• Twenty attorneys general filed a lawsuit on Wednesday (Maryland, et al. v. Hegseth et al.) challenging the March 26 executive order regarding diversity, equity and inclusion programs among federal contractors.
• The lawsuit alleges that President Donald Trump’s executive order impedes each state’s efforts to prevent racial discrimination and is unclear in what it prohibits. “Neither the Executive Order nor agency actions implementing it have provided any useful explanation of whether or how the contract term imposes requirements different from existing provisions of law,” the lawsuit alleges.
• The administration faces a similar lawsuit from a coalition led by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. That group said the administration "put federal contractors in an impossible bind" between signing away their freedoms or abstaining from their business.

if (window.dfp_visibility === 'mobile' ) googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.defineSlot( '/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid1', [[300, 250], 'fluid'], 'dfp-hybrid1-mobile' ).addService(googletag.pubads()); ); waitToLoadAds.push(function() googletag.cmd.push(function() if (window.dfp_visibility === 'mobile' ) window.onDvtagReady?.(() => googletag.display('dfp-hybrid1-mobile')); googletag.pubads().addEventListener('slotRenderEnded', function (event) var adUnitPath = '/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid1'; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + '-mobile'; var selector = '.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid1-mobile'; if (!$(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').hasClass('borders')) $(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').addClass('borders') ); ); ); if (window.dfp_visibility === 'desktop' ) googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.defineSlot( '/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid2', [[300, 250], 'fluid'], 'dfp-hybrid2-desktop' ).addService(googletag.pubads()); ); waitToLoadAds.push(function() googletag.cmd.push(function() if (window.dfp_visibility === 'desktop' ) window.onDvtagReady?.(() => googletag.display('dfp-hybrid2-desktop')); googletag.pubads().addEventListener('slotRenderEnded', function (event) var adUnitPath = '/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid2'; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + '-desktop'; var selector = '.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid2-desktop'; if (!$(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').hasClass('borders')) $(selector).closest('.pf-comments__ad-wrapper').addClass('borders') ); ); ); Dive Insight:

Trump’s executive order calls DEI-related initiatives “unethical and often illegal” and homes in on “disparate treatment” based on race or ethnicity in recruiting, employment and contracting. 

In response, acknowledging that each state complies with all relevant antidiscrimination laws, the attorneys general stated that they “also have a strong interest in preventing, detecting and remedying racial discrimination within their own operations and more broadly.”

Plaintiffs also called the executive order “especially confusing” given President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 executive order prohibiting racial discrimination among federal contractors.

The plaintiffs are the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Virginia and Vermont. Along with Pete Hegseth, the defendants include Acting Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling, as well as a wide range of administration officials.

Notably, the March 26 executive order demanded that all federal contractors provide certain reports to agencies for review, including “books, records and accounts,” adding that should a contractor or subcontractor be noncompliant with the order, their contract “may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor or subcontractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts.”

Regarding this week’s lawsuit, a White House spokesperson told HR Dive that Trump “has made his position clear” regarding his administration’s approach to merit.

“Individual dignity, hard work, and excellence made America the greatest country in the world, and DEI discrimination has no place in it. These practices are wrong, often illegal, and impose real costs on the American people,” the spokesperson said. “When the federal government contracts with companies that engage in them, taxpayers foot the bill.”

• Add us on Google
• Share
  • Copy link
  • Email
  • LinkedIn
  • X/Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Print
  • License

Filed Under: Federal Policy /* Keep this hidden until we need to show the v2 challenge. */ .captcha-container display: none; (function () )(); Higher Ed Dive news delivered to your inbox

Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts

Email:

• Select user consent: By signing up to receive our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Sign up A valid email address is required. Please select at least one newsletter.Editors' picks

• Spencer Platt via Getty ImagesMoody’s lowers Columbia University’s outlook to negative

  In its decision earlier this month, the credit rating agency cited federal pressure on the Ivy League institution and uncertainty around international enrollment.

  By Laura Spitalniak • May 11, 2026
• Retrieved from Senate Appropriations Committee on April 28, 20263 insights from McMahon’s testimony on the Education Department’s budget proposal

  Lawmakers grilled U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on the agency’s dismantling, its handling of civil rights cases and the future of TRIO. 

  By Natalie Schwartz • April 28, 2026