In January 2025, the White House issued Executive Order (EO) 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which mandated removing all Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) considerations from federal grantmaking. However, that order was later removed following legal challenges and administrative actions, leaving many agencies and grant seekers in flux. Below is an overview of what happened under EO 14151, how specific agencies initially complied, and how the current environment looks now that the EO is no longer in force.
1. EO 14151’s Brief Lifecycle
Issuance (January 2025)
EO 14151 directed federal agencies to stop using any DEIA criteria in grant proposals or program evaluations.
Agencies were told to revise their notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs), remove DEI language from solicitation documents, and disregard “equity-based” statements in scoring.
Immediate Agency Compliance
Many agencies quickly altered their grant policies, striking references to DEIA or pausing solicitations temporarily.
Applicants found themselves reworking proposals or having DEIA components ignored in evaluations.
Legal Challenges & Removal
Multiple lawsuits argued the order was unconstitutionally vague and conflicted with congressional mandates.
Courts eventually issued injunctions blocking key provisions, and the administration removed or rescinded EO 14151.
Agencies then began restoring previous guidance or clarifying that DEIA elements could again be considered as allowed by existing law.
Current Status: Although EO 14151 was removed, some agencies had already made changes that temporarily affected reviews. Now, most are reverting to their prior processes or updating solicitations to reflect standard evaluation frameworks, which may still vary by program.
2. Examples of Agency Responses (Before Removal)
Below are four major examples of how agencies initially reacted to EO 14151—steps that largely ended once the EO was revoked, but which shaped the grant landscape during its short lifespan.
A. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Stance: Announced it would “exclude statements and factors related to DEIA” from research and infrastructure proposals.
Effect on Applicants: Teams that spent time highlighting outreach to underrepresented groups were told that material would not influence scores.
Post-Removal: NOAA has mostly reverted to its prior approach, though some solicitations still highlight “technical and scientific merit” as the primary factor.
B. NASA
Inclusion Plan Pilot Ended: NASA terminated its pilot requiring inclusion plans for research grants, clarifying that any such sections in existing proposals were “not to be reviewed.”
Focus: NASA’s Science Mission Directorate streamlined proposals to emphasize feasibility, mission alignment, and cost-effectiveness.
After EO 14151: NASA resumed or reinstated certain community engagement or broadening-participation elements in line with pre-existing legal requirements.
C. SBIR/STTR Programs
Merit-Only Emphasis: Agencies administering Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants reinforced that proposals would be judged on technical merit and commercialization only.
Elimination of Certain Letters of Support: For instance, the National Science Foundation removed some “team diversity” letters to comply with the EO’s direction.
Current Return: As EO 14151 was rescinded, agencies can again encourage minority outreach, although each SBIR/STTR office may handle transitions at its own pace.
D. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
In-Progress Grants Affected: In certain notices, CDC instructed awardees to cease DEI-focused activities mid-project.
Disruption: Programs serving specific underserved populations were asked to remove equity-related language or rationales.
Post-Removal Restoration: Once EO 14151 was blocked/removed, CDC clarified that existing legal obligations (like nondiscrimination or statutory set-asides) remained and that the suspension of DEI components was lifted.
3. Historical and Legal Backdrop
Prior Policies
The Biden Administration (2021–2024) explicitly encouraged equity in federal funding decisions.
Agencies developed “Equity Action Plans,” and some solicitations awarded points for diversity outreach or broadening participation.
Shift & Lawsuits
EO 14151 reversed these efforts, calling them “illegal discrimination.”
Legal challenges argued the order was vague, conflicted with statutory mandates, and unlawfully changed spending decisions set by Congress.
Courts issued injunctions, ultimately leading to the removal of EO 14151.
Current Environment
With the EO gone, agencies are returning to their typical frameworks or reintroducing outreach and equity components as permitted by law. However, some program offices are still transitioning back, so monitoring updated solicitations and FAQs is advisable.
4. Adapting Your Proposal Strategy Post-EO
Although EO 14151 is no longer in effect, residual changes may linger, and agencies vary in how quickly they re-adopt equity considerations. Applicants should:
1. Check the Latest NOFO Guidance
Some solicitations might still say “We are not evaluating DEIA statements” if they haven’t been updated. Others have fully reinstated equity criteria.
2. Emphasize Core Merit
Strengthening technical justification, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness remains a safe path. Even agencies that welcome DEIA angles typically weigh them alongside core project merits.
3. Reintroduce Outreach Approaches (Where Allowed)
If your project includes community engagement or outreach to historically underserved groups, consider incorporating it again—but confirm the solicitation’s stance on these elements.
4. Keep an Eye on Legal Developments
Future litigation or policy orders might shift the balance again. Subscribing to agency listservs or following reputable grants policy news helps you pivot quickly if new memos appear.
5. Ensuring Community Impact
Use Statutory Programs
Some grants must serve specific populations by law (e.g., Minority-Serving Institution grants). Even under prior EO restrictions, these statutory programs continued. They remain valuable channels for achieving DEI objectives.
Leverage Alternative Funds
Private foundations or state/local grants often still value or require diversity and equity approaches. If a federal program’s guidelines remain purely merit-based, supplement that project with separate, locally funded DEI initiatives.
Collaborate with Program Officers
Agency officials can clarify how swiftly they are reverting to pre-EO criteria. Communicating respectfully can help you tailor your application to any in-transition policies.
Conclusion: Moving Forward Post-EO 14151
Although Executive Order 14151 has been removed, its brief tenure caused agencies to alter or pause certain DEIA elements in federal grants. Many have since resumed or reinstated equitable outreach and scoring components, reflecting the underlying statutory or mission-based goals they had before the order. Yet, the process of returning to prior norms is uneven: some solicitations are already back to including equity dimensions, while others still reference or reflect the now-rescinded EO’s instructions.
Key Takeaways:
Stay Current: Download the latest solicitation documents, as older versions may contain outdated or conflicting guidance.
Propose with Confidence: Focus on core merit and mission alignment, and—if the newest guidelines permit—incorporate outreach or equity angles that strengthen your community impact.
Monitor Legal Updates: If further policy changes arise, be prepared to revise your approach quickly.
Need Help?
At GrantSmiths we help nonprofits, researchers, and businesses navigate federal funding changes—whether implementing new equity initiatives or adapting to more traditional, merit-only frameworks. Contact us for personalized guidance on reading NOFOs, structuring proposals, and ensuring compliance with evolving grant criteria. We’re here to keep you focused on delivering strong, beneficial projects for your community—no matter how the policy landscape shifts.
Comments