Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Brief Opposing Trump’s Continued Attempts to Dismantle Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Programs

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in San Francisco AIDS Foundation, et al. v. Trump, et al., opposing the Trump Administration’s executive orders targeting programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). These orders declare programs promoting DEIA to be illegal and discriminatory, and require executive agencies to certify that all their contracts and grants do not promote DEIA. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the other attorneys general support a coalition of LGBTQ, healthcare, and community advocacy groups (“the plaintiffs”) in their lawsuit challenging the executive orders as unlawful. The coalition urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold the preliminary injunction granted by a district court blocking the executive orders’ restrictions. 

“Trump’s continued attacks on programs that promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility threatens to rip crucial support structures from under the feet of transgender individuals and other vulnerable populations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will continue to oppose these attempts to undermine data-backed programs that provide social and economic benefits and help people of all backgrounds and identities grow and prosper.” 

In January 2025, the Trump Administration issued two executive orders targeting DEIA and “equity-related grants or contracts.” While the anti-DEIA executive orders did not define these or other key terms, they directed: (1) executive agencies to terminate equity-related grants or contracts; (2) agencies to require contractors and grantees to certify that they do not run DEIA programs that, in the Administration’s view, violate federal anti-discrimination laws; and (3) the U.S. Attorney General to take steps to discourage private-sector use of DEIA, including deterring such initiatives and promoting compliance investigations. 

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging these executive orders, alleging the orders unlawfully burden organizations providing critical services to LGBTQ communities and especially harm community-based services for transgender individuals. In June 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the executive orders’ “Equity Termination Provision” was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment; the orders’ Gender Termination Provision and Gender Promotion Provision discriminated on the basis of transgender status in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and that all three provisions abridged the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment. The Trump Administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

In an amicus brief filed today in the Ninth Circuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue:

• Practices that promote DEIA are permitted and often even required under federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Even when not required by law, research indicates that DEIA-related policies and practices lead to benefits such as economic growth and better educational outcomes, rather than creating the purported “disastrous consequences” asserted by the executive orders.
• The executive orders lack clarity around the proposed certification requirements, creating confusion and compliance burdens that harm states, individuals, and businesses alike. The executive orders do not provide clear definitions of key terms like “DEIA,” “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” or “accessibility,” nor do they explain what aspects of such terms now constitute violations of federal law. States and private agencies are unable to anticipate what funding streams might be cancelled or why. Such agencies face termination notices for grants such as those addressing teacher shortages, workplace harassment, and gender-based violence, with no clear explanation of what actions the agencies can take to avoid terminations. This opaqueness creates a chilling effect for state and private entities, who must choose between broadly halting programs and services that their communities rely on or risk facing litigation or loss of crucial federal funding. 
• The executive orders’ Gender Termination and Gender Promotion Provisions discriminate against transgender populations by directing agencies to terminate grants that serve or even acknowledge transgender people. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led today’s amicus effort with the attorneys general of Illinois and Massachusetts. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.