Listen to the article
Federal Grantees Face New DEI Certification Requirements Under GSA Proposal
The U.S. General Services Administration has proposed significant changes to federal funding requirements, introducing a new certification process that would require organizations receiving federal financial assistance to verify their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs comply with antidiscrimination laws.
Released on February 18, 2026, the draft revised Supporting Statement would add new certifications to the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) registration process, the mandatory federal database for entities seeking federal funding. The proposal implements Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and aligns with guidance from the U.S. Attorney General’s July 2025 memorandum.
While the current proposal targets federal financial assistance recipients, industry experts anticipate similar certification requirements will soon extend to federal contractors. Public comments on the proposal are being accepted until March 30, 2026.
The certification carries substantial liability implications, including potential False Claims Act violations for organizations and criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for officials who sign the certifications. This personal exposure adds significant weight to compliance responsibilities for executives and institutional representatives.
At the heart of the proposal is language specifically addressing DEI initiatives. The draft affirms that federal antidiscrimination laws apply to all programs, including those labeled as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” with particular emphasis on prohibiting discrimination based on race or color.
The draft outlines several practices that may violate federal laws, including preferential treatment based on race in scholarships or hiring, racial segregation in training or facilities, using race as criteria for contract selection, and implementing training programs that stereotype individuals based on protected characteristics.
Legal analysts note the draft language creates potential confusion by focusing exclusively on race-based discrimination while omitting references to other protected categories such as sex, age, disability, or veteran status. The certification also inconsistently refers to “race or color,” “race-based,” and “race or ethnicity” throughout the document.
Beyond DEI concerns, the proposed certifications extend to immigration compliance and national security matters. Recipients must certify they will not knowingly bring unauthorized immigrants into the United States or “fund, subsidize, or facilitate violence, terrorism, or other illegal activities that threaten public safety or national security.”
The proposal also consolidates compliance attestations covering numerous federal statutes, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, drug-free workplace requirements, whistleblower protections, environmental regulations, and key civil rights laws.
Importantly, the draft includes provisions addressing active court orders or injunctions, stating that if a certification is subject to a binding court order prohibiting enforcement, that specific certification will be deemed inapplicable to the affected recipient while all others remain in force.
Public feedback so far has centered on concerns about the implications for healthcare-focused organizations, particularly those administering grants and research targeting specific populations with defined performance outcomes. Industry observers worry about potential conflicts between program objectives and the strict interpretation of antidiscrimination provisions.
For federal grantees, the next steps include potential submission of comments before the March 30 deadline, conducting privileged policy reviews, and implementing bias assessments to ensure a good-faith basis for certification. Federal contractors should closely monitor this development, as similar language may appear in upcoming Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses.
The proposed certification represents a significant shift in federal oversight of DEI initiatives and reflects the current administration’s approach to antidiscrimination enforcement. Organizations receiving federal funding will need to carefully evaluate their programs and policies to ensure compliance with these new requirements.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
15 Comments
This new certification process for federal grantees seems like a significant shift in DEI requirements. I’m curious to see how organizations respond and what the broader implications may be for the mining/energy sectors.
Agreed, it will be interesting to follow how this evolves. Compliance and liability risks are key concerns for many companies.
The proposed certification process for federal grantees raises some complex issues around DEI, antidiscrimination, and merit-based opportunity. I’m curious to see how the public comments shape the final policy.
Agreed, the public feedback will be crucial in determining the ultimate form and impact of these new requirements.
I’m a bit skeptical of the intent behind these new certification requirements. Is this really about ‘restoring merit-based opportunity’ or could there be other motives at play? Time will tell how this unfolds.
A valid concern. The language around ‘illegal DEI’ raises questions about the underlying goals and potential biases in the new policy.
This is an important development that mining, energy, and commodity companies will need to closely track. Compliance and potential liability risks could have significant business implications.
The proposed changes to federal grantee requirements seem to be a complex and potentially controversial issue. I’ll be interested to see how the public comment period shapes the final policy.
This is an important development that mining, energy, and commodity companies will need to closely track. Compliance and potential liability risks could have significant business implications.
Absolutely, proactive compliance will be crucial for organizations in these industries that rely on federal funding.
The proposed changes aim to ensure federally funded programs comply with antidiscrimination laws. While details remain unclear, mining/energy firms relying on federal grants should closely monitor this issue.
Good point. Proactive compliance will be crucial for organizations in these industries that receive government funding.
While the intent behind this policy is ostensibly to promote fairness, the ‘illegal DEI’ language is concerning. I hope the final rules strike an appropriate balance and don’t unfairly burden organizations.
This new certification process raises some interesting questions about the balance between promoting diversity/inclusion and ensuring merit-based opportunity. It will be important to follow how this evolves.
Well said. The nuances of this policy will be crucial in determining its real-world impacts on organizations in the mining, energy, and commodity sectors.