100 Days In: Where Do Things Stand?

This week marked President Trump’s 100^th day in office for his second term. As we have reported over the course of the past few months, the first 100 days of the second Trump administration have been active, with many new executive orders, turnover at federal agencies, and changes to regulations that impact both employers and educational institutions alike.

Given the rapid pace at which the Trump administration has taken action, we thought it would be helpful to take a step back this week and provide a review of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. Consequently, this week’s alert will be slightly different from our previous weeks’ alerts, which focused on new developments from that week. Instead, this alert provides an overview of some of the major changes since President Trump took office, and how those changes impact educational institutions and employers.

As always, should you have any questions, or wish to discuss any of these topics further, we welcome you to reach out to your Franczek attorney.

100 Days in Brief:

Executive Orders: Investigations, Enforcement, and Legal Challenges

1. Anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Orders – Where Do They Stand?
2. Executive Agency Investigations into Alleged Violations of Title IX – Executive Orders, Investigations & Enforcement, and Legal Challenges
3. Shutting Down the Department of Education

Federal Agencies Update

4. National Labor Relations Board Remains Stymied
5. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Shifts Gears and Faces Challenges
6. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Fights to Survive

Franczek Insights:

1. Anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Orders – Where Do They Stand? – by Hailey Golds

As one of his first acts in office, President Trump signed two executive orders seeking to curtail the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), including “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity.” The orders proclaim that the use of  Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies violate civil-rights laws and direct the heads of federal agencies to terminate offices, positions, plans, initiatives, grants or contracts that consider Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion factors; to revoke previous executive actions promoting diversity and inclusion initiatives; and to identify methods for enforcing civil-rights laws to end DEI practices in the private sector. 

Enforcement

Multiple federal agencies have issued statements and taken actions to implement these executive orders. On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo instructing the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the Office of Legal Policy to identify enforcement actions against organizations with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs that may be deemed unlawful under federal anti-discrimination laws. These enforcement actions include civil compliance investigations, regulatory actions, and, in some cases, potential criminal investigations. As a result, the DOJ has, among other things, shut down environmental justice investigations and opened an investigation into the University of California’s employment practices. 

Other agencies, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture, began rescinding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program funding and grants almost immediately pursuant to these orders. More recently, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a “Follow the Law” letter to all recipients of federal DOT funding to remind state and local governments to follow all legal requirements, including “prohibiting discrimination” and “enforcing controls on illegal immigration” in accordance with the Administration’s views on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies.

Guidance Documents from Government Agencies

On February 13, 2025, the Attorneys General of sixteen states issued joint guidance to ensure businesses and other organizations operating in their respective states “understand the continued viability and importance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts.” The joint guidance acknowledges the private sector’s concerns following President Trump’s executive order encouraging the private sector to end “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences” and asserts that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs remain legal and effective under state and federal civil rights laws.

In March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and DOJ released joint guidance providing further direction to employers “focused on educating the public about unlawful discrimination” in the workplace, including, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” and a longer question-and-answer technical assistance document, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.”

Legal Challenges

As we previously reported, several other suits challenging the anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion orders are currently pending in other jurisdictions, and at least one narrow injunction remains in effect to block portions of the orders.

Injunctions Issued and In Effect:

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump, brought in the Northern District of Illinois by a Chicago area trade association, challenges the constitutionality of the “Termination Provisions” and “Certification Provision” of President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders. On April 15, 2025, Judge Matthew Kennelly issued an order enjoining the Department of Labor and its officers from implementing a pause, freeze, or cancellation of any awards, contracts, or obligations made to the trade association on the basis of the Termination Provisions, and prevents the DOL from requiring any grantee or contractor to make a “certification” or other representation pursuant to the orders.

Injunctions Issued and Stayed:

State of California v. U.S. Department of Education, brought by several states including California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, challenges the Department of Education’s (“DOE”) decision to terminate approximately $250 million in federal grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership (“TQP”) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (“SEED”) programs. On March 10, a federal judge issued an order temporarily blocking the DOE from terminating the grants. However, on April 4, the Supreme Court paused the lower court order while the case is being appealed by the government.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education v. McMahon, brought in U.S. District Court in Maryland, challenges the cancelation of grants from the Department of Education through the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, based on the Anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Orders. On March 17, the court issued a preliminary injunction, but that injunction was stayed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 10, 2025.

Waiting on Rulings:

Doe 1 v. U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence was brought by civil servants in national security roles related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility and challenges their placement on leave pursuant to the Anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Orders under the First and Fifth Amendments as well as the Administrative Leave Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

National Urban League v. Trump was brought by the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago, and alleges that, because of the anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion executive orders, the plaintiffs are at significant risk of losing federal funds. The suit claims that the anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion orders, as well as the executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”, violate the First and Fifth Amendments as well as the Separation of Powers doctrine, Administrative Leave Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.

San Francisco Aids Foundation v. Trump challenges the executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion and protections for transgender individuals, alleging that the orders threaten financial assistance to the organization and the people it serves. The suit asks the court to declare that all three orders are unconstitutional in their entirety under the First and Fifth Amendments and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Actions Related to Education

As we have previously reported, the Administration has also taken steps to implement its anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion agenda in education. On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter setting out the Administration’s interpretation of nondiscrimination obligations for educational institutions that receive federal funding and warned schools that treating students differently based on race to achieve goals including diversity, racial balancing, social justice, and equity, is in OCR’s opinion, illegal. The Department has taken subsequent actions to enforce the Letter, including through the 2025 FAQ, “End DEI Portal,” and April 3, 2025 request for certification.

Last week, courts in Washington D.C., Maryland, and New Hampshire entered orders temporarily blocking enforcement of the Dear Colleague letter. The court in New Hampshire granted a request by National Education Association (NEA) and Center for Black Educator Development (CBED) for a preliminary injunction that bars the defendants, including Department of Education Secretary McMahon, from enforcing these measures against the plaintiffs or any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more plaintiffs or one or more of plaintiffs’ members.

2. Executive Agency Investigations into Alleged Violations of Title IX – Executive Orders, Investigations & Enforcement, and Legal Challenges – by Emily Tulloch

In the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term, there has been a flurry of activity in the Title IX space, particularly in the areas of gender ideology and athletics. President Trump issued two executive orders in the first two weeks of his presidency that addressed the administration’s position on gender identity. The first, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, proclaims that the federal government only recognizes two sexes: male and female, and does not include gender identity. The second, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, threatens loss of federal funding for any support of “gender ideology” in schools, including counseling or treatment by school counselors, modifying a student’s name or pronouns, calling a student “nonbinary,” allowing use of bathrooms or locker rooms in accordance with a student’s gender identity as opposed to “sex,” and/or allowing participation in athletics or extracurriculars specifically designated for a certain sex. While these executive orders do not explicitly alter any portions of Title IX or its implementing regulations, they make clear that the administration does not consider gender identity to be protected under Title IX. For more information regarding these executive orders, see our prior alerts here and here.

The third executive order, Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports, has been the impetus for a number of federal enforcement actions targeted at various school districts, state departments of education, and higher education institutions. This executive order seeks to restrict the participation of transgender women and girls in women’s athletic competitions and rescind federal funds from institutions that allow transgender women to participate in women’s sports. For more on this executive order, see our prior alert. After this order was issued, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) launched investigations into the Minnesota State High School League, the California Interscholastic Federation, the Maine Department of Education (MDOE), a Washington school district, and various Virginia public school districts for alleged violations of the executive order for allowing transgender male students to participate in women’s athletics.

The MDOE was the first entity subject to these investigations that the DOE found in violation of Title IX, reasoning that the MDOE denied female student athletes an equal opportunity to participate in athletics by “allowing male athletes to compete against female athletes” in athletic events. As a result of this finding, the DOE has initiated its administrative process to suspend or terminate federal funding from the MDOE. The DOE also referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for further enforcement in federal court, which was followed by the DOJ’s announcement that it is suing the MDOE for continuing to allow transgender female athletes to participate in girls’ sports.

In response, the State of Maine filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture and the US Secretary of Agriculture, seeking injunctive relief after the Department of Agriculture froze federal funds allocated to Maine that are intended to feed schoolchildren. The State of Maine’s lawsuit alleges that the Secretary of Agriculture took unilateral action to freeze funding “without following any of the statutory and regulatory requirements that must be complied with when terminating federal funds based on alleged violations of Title IX.”

Similar investigations and enforcement actions have been initiated at the higher education level as well, including, most notably, the administration’s suspension of approximately $175 million dollars from the University of Pennsylvania based on its failure to follow the “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” executive order.

We are unlikely to see these types of investigations and enforcement actions slow down in the next 100 days and beyond. Notably, the DOE and DOJ established a Title IX Special Investigations Team (SIT) to investigate “the effects of gender ideology in school programs and activities” and violations of executive orders, including “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” In fact, one of the SIT’s first investigations was announced on April 30, 2025, against the Washington State Superintendent’s Office (Office). The investigation is premised on reports that the Office is requiring school boards to adopt policies that “allow males to participate in female sports and occupy female-only intimate facilities, thereby raising substantial Title IX concerns.”

3. Executive Order Directing Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education – by Brittany H. Begley

The first 100 days of President Trump’s leadership involved much uncertainty surrounding the future of the United States Department of Education (“DOE”). That uncertainty became clearer on March 20, when President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” As we reported on previously, this Executive Order instructed DOE Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to “facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” emphasizing the return of educational authority to States and local communities. Since the issuance of this Executive Order, it has faced challenges throughout the country. We reported on these various lawsuits earlier this year.

In attempting to reach this goal of dismantling the DOE, the Trump administration has reduced the Department’s workforce by approximately half of its staff, meaning that an estimated 2,000 individuals have had their employment with the DOE terminated. As a result of this decrease in staff numbers, key roles of the DOE have been impacted. Specifically, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), which functions as the investigative body for resolving complaints submitted by members of the public alleging discrimination under various federal laws including Title VI of the Civil rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title II”), has sustained large losses of staff members and half of its offices across the country were closed.

One of the lawsuits challenging various aspects of the Executive Order specifically addresses the reduction of staffing within OCR. Carter v. Department of Education was originally filed on March 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by two parents along with a nonprofit, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, against the DOE, Secretary McMahon, and Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. On April 10, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that challenges both the act of reducing the number of staff within OCR as well as OCR’s alleged freezing of investigations into complaints involving race- and sex-based discrimination. The plaintiffs argue that these actions on the part of the DOE, its Secretary, and Acting Secretary Trainor, inhibit OCR’s ability to process and investigate complaints submitted by the public on matters involving discrimination allegations.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief including, among other remedies, the Court’s declaration that the defendants’ “decimation of OCR’s ability to process and investigate complaints” is unlawful as a result of alleged violations under the Administrative Procedure Act and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which guarantees equal protection. Further, the amended complaint calls for an order of the Court compelling the defendants to “restore the investigation and processing capacity of OCR” including a directive that ensures the defendants’ compliance with such obligations. As this case is ongoing, we will continue to monitor it, along with all other pending legal challenges involving the Trump administration’s Executive Order directing the dismantling of the DOE.

4. National Labor Relations Board Remains Stymied – by Rachel E. Domash

The National Labor Relations Board previously resisted the government-wide directive to institute layoffs from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”). Instead of planned layoffs, the NLRB informed OMB and OPM that it planned to continue its hiring freeze, offer voluntary early retirements, continue to look for ways to “realign and right-size for improved efficiency,” and explore use of artificial intelligence for research and drafting documents. The NLRB argued that its smaller workforce and growing workload in recent years excused it from the layoffs. However, the OMB recently deemed the NLRB’s reasoning for avoiding layoffs inadequate. OMB recently again urged the NLRB to “think creatively” to reduce its headcount, including “consolidation or elimination” of positions. The NLRB has submitted additional information as directed by OMB and OPM, and currently awaits feedback. We will provide updates as these matters develop further.

Additionally, at this time, NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox and federal Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) Member Cynthia Harris remain terminated from their respective positions. Ultimately, their reinstatement is up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will make a final ruling addressing the president’s removal powers. In the meantime, both the NLRB and MSPB are left without a quorum., preventing them from issuing decisions or new regulations.

5. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Shifts Gears and Faces Challenges – by Rachel E. Domash and Hailey Golds

Like the NLRB, the EEOC continues to operate without a quorum, meaning that, for now, the agency lacks the ability institute changes to its pre-existing regulations. Regardless, the Agency continues to move forward to enact the Administration’s policy goals, specifically around its interpretations of anti-discrimination protections and rulemaking under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Title VII Enforcement

As discussed above, on March 19, 2025, the EEOC and Justice Department released two guidance documents “focused on educating the public about unlawful discrimination” in the workplace related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts. The EEOC has taken several actions in pursuit of its anti-discrimination agenda, including sending letters to “elite law firms” questioning their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs and suggesting that they violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In response, four of the country’s largest law firms, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and A&O Shearman Sterling, LLC, entered into a settlement agreement “affirm[ing] their commitment to lawful merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention” and agreeing to compliance monitoring. In April, several law students filed a challenge to the EEOC’s enforcement actions against law firms, and that litigation remains pending.

The EEOC has also announced its intention to hold universities and colleges accountable for antisemitism on “campus workplaces” under Title VII, and has launched investigations into Columbia University and Barnard College. The EEOC indicated that it will partner with the DOJ in its investigation of the University of California and join in other actions by the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

While the EEOC may be willing to file suit to enforce its subpoena under the PWFA, the EEOC is unwilling to move forward with prosecuting a transgender discrimination suit filed in a Michigan federal court. Ultimately, the federal judge allowed the EEOC to withdraw from the lawsuit on April 28, 2025, but the judge noted that the EEOC appeared to be abandoning its case in support of a group “its mission seeks to protect.” This is just one of the several lawsuits the EEOC originally filed under the Biden Administration to enforce Title VII’s  prohibition of sex-based workplace discrimination against transgender employees. However, after President Donald Trump was elected, the EEOC reversed its position and moved to dismiss these cases, based on the Executive Orders issued by the President.

6. National Labor Unions File Suit Over Changes to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service – by Karen Villagomez

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”), commissioned by Congress in 1947 under the Labor Management Relations Act, serves as the federal government’s primary provider of mediation and conflict resolution services for private sector employers and unions. In addition to its statutory mandate to facilitate collective bargaining and avoid work stoppages, FMCS has been a reputable source in providing parties in the public and private sectors with skilled arbitrators and mediators under their collective bargaining agreements.

On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy” (“the Order”), directing seven federal agencies—including FMCS—to scale back staff and operations to the minimum required by law. FMCS responded by slashing its workforce by more than 90%, reducing its mediator personnel from roughly 143 to five. On April 14, 2025, amid a growing number of unresolved labor disputes and increased strike risk, several unions—including the American Federation of Teachers—filed suit in the Southern District of New York against the federal officials and entities responsible for implementing the Order: the FMCS and its acting director, the Office of Management and Budget and its director, and the United States.

The unions allege that the defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by abruptly reducing FMCS staff without legal authority or reasoned explanation and by ceasing to perform FMCS’s statutory duties without Congressional action. The Unions further contend that the defendants’ actions unlawfully undermined Congressional appropriations and violated constitutional separation of powers. The complaint seeks to invalidate the Order, reinstate FMCS’s workforce, halt further staff reductions, and compel the agency to resume mediation services suspended after March 14, 2025.

On April 16, 2025, the unions filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting an immediate stop to the reduction in force, reinstatement of mediator staff, and restoration of operations. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the motion on April 30, 2025.

On April 29, 2025, a group of Illinois union representatives, academics, mediators, and labor practitioners, including Franczek, P.C., sent a statement in support of FMCS to President Trump, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and Illinois members of Congress. The group asserts that it is “imperative” to retain FMCS to respond to labor relations problems and that eliminating the agency’s services risks destabilizing labor-management relations and “holding economic growth back.” 

The executive-led downsizing of the FMCS is expected to significantly disrupt labor relations across both the public and private sectors. We recognize the uncertainty this creates and stand steady to advise and support our clients as they navigate its impact.