Prohibits state departments from spending money on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives
HB 742 creates a new section of Missouri law prohibiting state departments from spending funds on intradepartmental programs, staffing, or other initiatives tied to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), “diversity, inclusion, and belonging,” or similar efforts that the bill says promote preferential treatment based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or ancestry. The bill also bars initiatives that rely on concepts such as collective guilt, the idea that disparities are solely the result of oppression, intersectional or divisive identity activism, or the limiting of freedom of conscience, thought, or speech.
The bill includes exceptions allowing state departments to continue complying with federal and state employment and anti-discrimination laws and with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also prohibits state departments from requiring, mandating, or incentivizing private-sector employers to adopt these types of programs as a condition of receiving a state contract. In practical terms, the measure would restrict how state agencies may use appropriated funds and how they may influence contractors’ workplace policies.
HB 742 would add section 1.2030 to Missouri statutes and directly limit the use of state department funds for DEI-related programming, staffing, and initiatives. It would also constrain state agencies’ contracting practices by preventing them from conditioning state contracts on private employers adopting DEI-related programs. The bill does not eliminate compliance obligations under existing civil rights, employment discrimination, or disability laws, but it would narrow the scope of permissible state-supported diversity programming and related administrative activity.
The available voting history suggests the bill had substantial support in the Missouri House, passing both perfection and third reading with clear majorities. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote totals indicate the measure was generally favored by a majority of lawmakers. The bill’s framing as a restriction on DEI spending suggests it likely drew support from members skeptical of DEI programs and opposition from members who view such programs as important for equal opportunity and workplace inclusion.
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of DEI and related concepts. Supporters appear to view the measure as preventing state spending on programs they believe promote preferential treatment, compelled speech, or divisive identity-based policies. Opponents are likely to argue that the bill is overly broad, could chill legitimate training or inclusion efforts, and may interfere with agencies’ ability to address discrimination or improve workplace equity. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s effect on state contracting, since it would bar agencies from pressuring private employers to adopt DEI initiatives as a condition of doing business with the state.