Terminating and defunding diversity, equity and inclusion.
SF0103 is a Wyoming government and higher-education bill that broadly restricts the use of appropriated and other public funds for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices, programs, trainings, statements, and hiring or employment practices. It defines DEI expansively to include efforts that promote differential treatment or special benefits based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, or gender dysphoria, while carving out exceptions for actions required by state or federal law or court order.
The bill also adds new restrictions for the University of Wyoming and community colleges. Their boards may not require students to take courses with DEI-related content to complete degree requirements, and they may not require or incentivize faculty or students to participate in related practices as a condition of program approval, tenure, salary adjustment, or other incentives. At the same time, the bill exempts academic instruction, scholarly research, student organizations, guest speakers, data collection, and certain programs focused on federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal history, culture, language, and traditions.
In addition to the prohibitions, the act creates a $550,000 general fund appropriation to the University of Wyoming for the first cohort of five medical students training under an agreement with the University of Utah School of Medicine. That funding is conditioned on compliance with Utah’s DEI laws as they apply to the instruction and training provided there, along with other statutory requirements. The bill applies to funds appropriated or received on or after its effective date, July 1, 2025, and does not alter preexisting contracts.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it creates new statutory limits on how state agencies, local governments, school districts, and public higher-education institutions may spend public money and structure programs related to DEI. It also changes the rules for curriculum design and institutional incentives at the University of Wyoming and community colleges, while preserving certain academic and tribal-related activities. The appropriation section adds a targeted funding item tied to medical education and inter-state training arrangements.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history suggests strong support in the Senate and eventual enactment, but with notable resistance in the House and on concurrence. The bill passed the Senate 26-4, passed the House 52-7 after amendment, and then the concurrence vote failed overwhelmingly before the chamber receded from non-concurrence, indicating that the final version was reached through negotiation. The main contention appears to have been over the scope of the DEI prohibitions, especially their effect on public education, hiring, training, and whether the restrictions would interfere with academic freedom, institutional autonomy, or existing diversity-related programming.
This act creates new Wyoming statutes restricting the use of appropriated and other public funds for DEI offices, programs, trainings, statements, and race-, sex-, ethnicity-, or gender-dysphoria-based preferences across a broad set of governmental entities, including state agencies, the legislature, judiciary, local governments, school districts, community colleges, and the University of Wyoming. It also imposes curriculum and program-design limits on the University of Wyoming and community colleges, while expressly exempting certain academic, research, student-organization, guest-speaker, data-collection, and tribal-related activities. The bill further appropriates $550,000 to the University of Wyoming for medical education under a University of Utah partnership, subject to specified conditions.
The bill appears to have been generally supported by legislative majorities, as shown by strong passage margins in both chambers and final enactment. However, the concurrence failure and subsequent recede vote indicate meaningful disagreement over the House amendments and the bill’s final form. Overall, the sentiment was favorable among supporters of limiting DEI spending and mandates, but opposed or cautious among members concerned about education policy, institutional discretion, and the breadth of the restrictions.
The main points of contention were the bill’s broad definition of DEI and the extent to which it would bar public entities and higher-education institutions from using funds for DEI-related offices, trainings, hiring practices, and course requirements. Opponents likely focused on impacts to academic freedom, faculty governance, student programming, and institutional compliance with accreditation or legal obligations, while supporters emphasized eliminating compelled DEI statements, trainings, and preferential treatment. Another sensitive issue was the bill’s treatment of tribal programs and whether the exemptions were sufficient to protect Native American studies and support services.