PolicyBrief
H.R. 5474
119th CongressSep 18th 2025
No DEI in DC Act
IN COMMITTEE

This Act prohibits the District of Columbia government from engaging in or funding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices, training, and related offices, while establishing a private right of action for enforcement.

Nancy Mace
R

Nancy Mace

Representative

SC-1

LEGISLATION

DC Bill Eliminates 15 Offices, Bans DEI Training, and Creates $1,000-a-Day Lawsuits

This legislation, titled the “No DEI in DC Act,” is a comprehensive federal bill aiming to dismantle virtually all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) infrastructure within the District of Columbia government. If enacted, the bill would prohibit the D.C. government from engaging in or funding any practice defined as a prohibited DEI practice, which includes mandatory training or agreements that assert systemic superiority or inferiority based on race, sex, or origin (Sec. 2).

The Great Office Purge: Who Gets Cut?

The most immediate and visible impact of this bill is the systematic removal of offices and commissions dedicated to specific demographic groups and equity issues. The bill mandates the abolition of at least 15 distinct offices and commissions (Sec. 5). These include the Mayor’s Office on Latino Affairs, the Office on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, the Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs, the Commission for Women, and the Office of Racial Equity. For residents who rely on these specific offices for community outreach, advocacy, or targeted services, the support structure they know is effectively eliminated, with the bill specifically prohibiting the creation of any “substantially similar” successor offices.

New Rules for the Government Workforce

For the thousands of people who work for the D.C. government, the rules around training and hiring change drastically. The bill bans the D.C. government from creating or requiring employees to complete any training related to DEI, critical theory, intersectionality, sexual orientation, or gender identity (Sec. 3). Furthermore, personnel decisions—like hiring, firing, or promotion—cannot be based on whether an employee failed to complete such training or refused to sign a statement asserting that any race, sex, or origin is inherently superior or inferior (Sec. 2). While the bill preserves existing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance (Sec. 7), it cuts off funding for Chief Diversity Officers, employee resource groups based on identity, and strategic plans related to equity (Sec. 5).

Stripping Equity from Public Services and Planning

Beyond the offices, the bill systematically amends or repeals dozens of existing D.C. laws, effectively pulling the plug on requirements to consider equity in key areas (Sec. 4). For example, requirements to consider racial equity in the budget process and performance measures are struck. In public health, provisions related to specialized services for LGBTQ seniors and youth are repealed, including language ensuring sensitivity training for providers serving LGBTQ homeless youth. This means that data collection and targeted services for vulnerable populations, like the “number of LGBTQ homeless youth in the District,” would no longer be mandated, potentially making it harder to track and address specific community needs.

The $1,000-a-Day Lawsuit Risk

Perhaps the biggest administrative headache for the D.C. government is the creation of a powerful private right of action (Sec. 6). Any person who believes the D.C. government has violated this Act can sue in federal court. If they win, the court must award a minimum of $1,000 for each day the violation occurred, plus attorney’s fees and compensatory damages. This mandatory minimum penalty creates a massive financial risk for the District. If, for instance, a newly abolished office is deemed to be operating a “substantially similar” function for 90 days, the D.C. government could face a $90,000 fine per violation, inviting significant and costly litigation from private citizens seeking to enforce the ban.