Newest Executive Order Taking Aim at DEI in Federal Contracting: What Government Contractors and Subcontractors Need to Know
Client Alerts
March 31, 2026
By: David Robbins, Katie Wynbrandt, Jessica Ring Amunson, Michael Vernick, Betsy Henthorne, Daniel Schwei, Erica Turret
Attention government contractors and subcontractors, a new Executive Order (EO) demands your immediate attention. Titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, the order, issued March 26, directs federal agencies to begin inserting a new clause prohibiting what the EO terms “racially discriminatory DEI activities” into contracts within 30 days. The EO’s text reaches more broadly than prior purported DEI preclusion efforts. Here is what you need to know.
Scope Expansion. The order defines “racially discriminatory DEI activities” as “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” Program participation, in turn, is defined as “membership or participation in, or access or admission to: training, mentoring, or leadership development programs; educational opportunities; clubs; associations; or similar opportunities that are sponsored or established by the contractor or subcontractor.” It is important to note that while “disparate treatment” is a term of art in the context of antidiscrimination law, these standards are not expressly tied to existing federal antidiscrimination law—which means prior compliance reviews may not be sufficient. If your organization has conducted DEI program reviews grounded in Title VII and other applicable sources of federal antidiscrimination law, those reviews may need to be revisited with this new—and potentially broader—benchmark in mind.
False Claims Act and Debarment as Enforcement. As the Trump Administration has done with prior EOs, this order designates the new contract clause as “material” under the False Claims Act and directs the Department of Justice to actively consider bringing False Claims Act suits against noncompliant contractors. The EO also threatens debarment for noncompliance. While recipients of federal funds may be familiar with False Claims Act threats, the debarment risk is new and worthy of attention. Because of the highly discretionary standard for debarment, and the deference typically afforded debarring officials, the express direction to consider debarment may indicate an escalation of the Administration’s enforcement efforts against DEI.
Legal Justification for the EO. The EO argues that DEI programs are inefficient—that they create waste and pass unnecessary costs on to the federal government. The EO is framed this way to align with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), which gives the President authority to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement. While courts have recently pushed back on broad FPASA-based mandates—the federal contractor vaccine requirement and $15 minimum wage were both enjoined—presidents have a long history of using FPASA specifically to impose antidiscrimination requirements on contractors. Litigation challenging the order is likely, whether before or after agency implementation efforts materialize, and we will be monitoring any litigation that develops, including its implications for non-parties and other regulated entities.
The Retroactivity Question Is Unresolved. One significant open question is whether this order applies to contracts already in place or only to new ones going forward. The clause-by-clause implementation approach suggests prospective application, but the enforcement provisions are written broadly enough to leave ambiguity. Given this ambiguity and the highly deferential debarment standard discussed above, contractors may wish to plan and prepare as if existing contracts are potentially in scope.
What To Do Right Now. Given the 30-day clock already running, we recommend auditing your DEI-related programs, policies, and activities against the EO’s new standard—not just against federal antidiscrimination law. We further recommend extending that review to your subcontractor relationships and any third-party programs “sponsored” by your organization. This review should include a candid assessment of False Claims Act and debarment exposure, particularly if programs include any race-or ethnicity-conscious elements. Jenner & Block lawyers will keep a close eye on agency implementation guidance and any FAR amendments, as we hope those will fill in many of the gaps the order currently leaves open.
Jenner & Block lawyers are available to assist with any of these steps and will continue to monitor developments as they unfold.
Scope Expansion. The order defines “racially discriminatory DEI activities” as “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” Program participation, in turn, is defined as “membership or participation in, or access or admission to: training, mentoring, or leadership development programs; educational opportunities; clubs; associations; or similar opportunities that are sponsored or established by the contractor or subcontractor.” It is important to note that while “disparate treatment” is a term of art in the context of antidiscrimination law, these standards are not expressly tied to existing federal antidiscrimination law—which means prior compliance reviews may not be sufficient. If your organization has conducted DEI program reviews grounded in Title VII and other applicable sources of federal antidiscrimination law, those reviews may need to be revisited with this new—and potentially broader—benchmark in mind.
False Claims Act and Debarment as Enforcement. As the Trump Administration has done with prior EOs, this order designates the new contract clause as “material” under the False Claims Act and directs the Department of Justice to actively consider bringing False Claims Act suits against noncompliant contractors. The EO also threatens debarment for noncompliance. While recipients of federal funds may be familiar with False Claims Act threats, the debarment risk is new and worthy of attention. Because of the highly discretionary standard for debarment, and the deference typically afforded debarring officials, the express direction to consider debarment may indicate an escalation of the Administration’s enforcement efforts against DEI.
Legal Justification for the EO. The EO argues that DEI programs are inefficient—that they create waste and pass unnecessary costs on to the federal government. The EO is framed this way to align with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), which gives the President authority to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement. While courts have recently pushed back on broad FPASA-based mandates—the federal contractor vaccine requirement and $15 minimum wage were both enjoined—presidents have a long history of using FPASA specifically to impose antidiscrimination requirements on contractors. Litigation challenging the order is likely, whether before or after agency implementation efforts materialize, and we will be monitoring any litigation that develops, including its implications for non-parties and other regulated entities.
The Retroactivity Question Is Unresolved. One significant open question is whether this order applies to contracts already in place or only to new ones going forward. The clause-by-clause implementation approach suggests prospective application, but the enforcement provisions are written broadly enough to leave ambiguity. Given this ambiguity and the highly deferential debarment standard discussed above, contractors may wish to plan and prepare as if existing contracts are potentially in scope.
What To Do Right Now. Given the 30-day clock already running, we recommend auditing your DEI-related programs, policies, and activities against the EO’s new standard—not just against federal antidiscrimination law. We further recommend extending that review to your subcontractor relationships and any third-party programs “sponsored” by your organization. This review should include a candid assessment of False Claims Act and debarment exposure, particularly if programs include any race-or ethnicity-conscious elements. Jenner & Block lawyers will keep a close eye on agency implementation guidance and any FAR amendments, as we hope those will fill in many of the gaps the order currently leaves open.
Jenner & Block lawyers are available to assist with any of these steps and will continue to monitor developments as they unfold.
Related Lawyers
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Client Alerts
March 31, 2026
By: David Robbins, Katie Wynbrandt, Jessica Ring Amunson, Michael Vernick, Betsy Henthorne, Daniel Schwei, Erica Turret
Attention government contractors and subcontractors, a new Executive Order (EO) demands your immediate attention. Titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, the order, issued March 26, directs federal agencies to begin inserting a new clause prohibiting what the EO terms “racially discriminatory DEI activities” into contracts within 30 days. The EO’s text reaches more broadly than prior purported DEI preclusion efforts. Here is what you need to know.
Scope Expansion. The order defines “racially discriminatory DEI activities” as “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” Program participation, in turn, is defined as “membership or participation in, or access or admission to: training, mentoring, or leadership development programs; educational opportunities; clubs; associations; or similar opportunities that are sponsored or established by the contractor or subcontractor.” It is important to note that while “disparate treatment” is a term of art in the context of antidiscrimination law, these standards are not expressly tied to existing federal antidiscrimination law—which means prior compliance reviews may not be sufficient. If your organization has conducted DEI program reviews grounded in Title VII and other applicable sources of federal antidiscrimination law, those reviews may need to be revisited with this new—and potentially broader—benchmark in mind.
False Claims Act and Debarment as Enforcement. As the Trump Administration has done with prior EOs, this order designates the new contract clause as “material” under the False Claims Act and directs the Department of Justice to actively consider bringing False Claims Act suits against noncompliant contractors. The EO also threatens debarment for noncompliance. While recipients of federal funds may be familiar with False Claims Act threats, the debarment risk is new and worthy of attention. Because of the highly discretionary standard for debarment, and the deference typically afforded debarring officials, the express direction to consider debarment may indicate an escalation of the Administration’s enforcement efforts against DEI.
Legal Justification for the EO. The EO argues that DEI programs are inefficient—that they create waste and pass unnecessary costs on to the federal government. The EO is framed this way to align with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), which gives the President authority to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement. While courts have recently pushed back on broad FPASA-based mandates—the federal contractor vaccine requirement and $15 minimum wage were both enjoined—presidents have a long history of using FPASA specifically to impose antidiscrimination requirements on contractors. Litigation challenging the order is likely, whether before or after agency implementation efforts materialize, and we will be monitoring any litigation that develops, including its implications for non-parties and other regulated entities.
The Retroactivity Question Is Unresolved. One significant open question is whether this order applies to contracts already in place or only to new ones going forward. The clause-by-clause implementation approach suggests prospective application, but the enforcement provisions are written broadly enough to leave ambiguity. Given this ambiguity and the highly deferential debarment standard discussed above, contractors may wish to plan and prepare as if existing contracts are potentially in scope.
What To Do Right Now. Given the 30-day clock already running, we recommend auditing your DEI-related programs, policies, and activities against the EO’s new standard—not just against federal antidiscrimination law. We further recommend extending that review to your subcontractor relationships and any third-party programs “sponsored” by your organization. This review should include a candid assessment of False Claims Act and debarment exposure, particularly if programs include any race-or ethnicity-conscious elements. Jenner & Block lawyers will keep a close eye on agency implementation guidance and any FAR amendments, as we hope those will fill in many of the gaps the order currently leaves open.
Jenner & Block lawyers are available to assist with any of these steps and will continue to monitor developments as they unfold.
Scope Expansion. The order defines “racially discriminatory DEI activities” as “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” Program participation, in turn, is defined as “membership or participation in, or access or admission to: training, mentoring, or leadership development programs; educational opportunities; clubs; associations; or similar opportunities that are sponsored or established by the contractor or subcontractor.” It is important to note that while “disparate treatment” is a term of art in the context of antidiscrimination law, these standards are not expressly tied to existing federal antidiscrimination law—which means prior compliance reviews may not be sufficient. If your organization has conducted DEI program reviews grounded in Title VII and other applicable sources of federal antidiscrimination law, those reviews may need to be revisited with this new—and potentially broader—benchmark in mind.
False Claims Act and Debarment as Enforcement. As the Trump Administration has done with prior EOs, this order designates the new contract clause as “material” under the False Claims Act and directs the Department of Justice to actively consider bringing False Claims Act suits against noncompliant contractors. The EO also threatens debarment for noncompliance. While recipients of federal funds may be familiar with False Claims Act threats, the debarment risk is new and worthy of attention. Because of the highly discretionary standard for debarment, and the deference typically afforded debarring officials, the express direction to consider debarment may indicate an escalation of the Administration’s enforcement efforts against DEI.
Legal Justification for the EO. The EO argues that DEI programs are inefficient—that they create waste and pass unnecessary costs on to the federal government. The EO is framed this way to align with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), which gives the President authority to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement. While courts have recently pushed back on broad FPASA-based mandates—the federal contractor vaccine requirement and $15 minimum wage were both enjoined—presidents have a long history of using FPASA specifically to impose antidiscrimination requirements on contractors. Litigation challenging the order is likely, whether before or after agency implementation efforts materialize, and we will be monitoring any litigation that develops, including its implications for non-parties and other regulated entities.
The Retroactivity Question Is Unresolved. One significant open question is whether this order applies to contracts already in place or only to new ones going forward. The clause-by-clause implementation approach suggests prospective application, but the enforcement provisions are written broadly enough to leave ambiguity. Given this ambiguity and the highly deferential debarment standard discussed above, contractors may wish to plan and prepare as if existing contracts are potentially in scope.
What To Do Right Now. Given the 30-day clock already running, we recommend auditing your DEI-related programs, policies, and activities against the EO’s new standard—not just against federal antidiscrimination law. We further recommend extending that review to your subcontractor relationships and any third-party programs “sponsored” by your organization. This review should include a candid assessment of False Claims Act and debarment exposure, particularly if programs include any race-or ethnicity-conscious elements. Jenner & Block lawyers will keep a close eye on agency implementation guidance and any FAR amendments, as we hope those will fill in many of the gaps the order currently leaves open.
Jenner & Block lawyers are available to assist with any of these steps and will continue to monitor developments as they unfold.
Related Lawyers
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block Rises in American Lawyer Rankings for Summer Associate Experience
Jenner & Block ranked 14th nationally in The American Lawyer’s 2026 Summer Associate Satisfaction Survey, jumping 10 spots from last year. The annual survey measures summer associate satisfaction at US law firms based on ratings provided directly by summer associates across key firm qualities.
October 2, 2026