Golden Gate Bridge CEO considering removing DEI language in fear of losing $400M in federal grants
On the line? Millions of dollars in federal grant money set to be used to retrofit the 88-year-old bridge
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The Golden Gate Bridge could be at risk of losing millions of dollars in transportation funding from the Trump Administration unless it rescinds policies that discourage racism and implicit bias.
The iconic bridge has stood the test of time for 88 years, but now policies that some view as "too woke" could put the bridge at risk.
"The reality is, we are not going to glide under the radar. We are the Golden Gate Bridge. We are a symbol of our country. So, we anticipate heightened scrutiny of our grant awards," said Denis Mulligan, General Manager for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District.
Here's what's going on.
In April of this year, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced that all federal transportation grants will have to follow new terms and conditions, including complying with federal immigration enforcement and rejecting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
MORE: Appeals court allows Trump to enact anti-DEI executive orders
After hearing this, Mulligan, general manager of the public agency that operates the bridge, issued a memo suggesting the cancellation of a resolution that "condemned racism."
"The new grant agreement language from the U.S Department of Transportation says that if you violate their anti-DEI prohibition, you could lose your grant and you could be subject to claims under the False Claims Act, in which case that if they awarded a grant, you would be subject to triple damages," said Mulligan.
On the line is $400 million of federal grant money set to be used to retrofit the bridge.
"It is disappointing that we would want to ever retract any statement that is so universally held, that any human being should agree on, that no one should face discrimination," said San Francisco Supervisor Joel Engardio.
MORE: Bay Area bridge tolls set to increase to at least $10.50 by 2030 to cover infrastructure costs
San Francisco supervisors Joel Engardio and Danny Sauter are board members of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. Both disagree with the removal of language approach.
"What I would urge the Golden Gate Bridge to do is to do what the San Francisco County Transit Authority has done, which is to join a class action lawsuit with other transit agencies from around the country, saying that this guidance from the Trump administration is not lawful and we are going to fight it in court," said SF Supervisor Danny Sauter.
MORE: San Francisco installs $224M net to stop suicides off Golden Gate Bridge
Mulligan said he considered that option.
"Ultimately, the question is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, so your grant could be delayed while it navigates itself through the court. The question for the court will be, can the federal government condition a federal grant to require that the grantee comply with all federal laws, even when they conflict with the state law or local ordinance? I don't think it's prudent to gamble $400 million on how the U.S. Supreme Court might answer that question. So that brings us to the third option. And the third option is, what's in the staff report? The third option says we have lots of policies, lots of resolutions. We're a great place to work. We provide first-class service to our customers," said Mulligan.
When asked if he thinks this decision to change some of the resolution language is driven by fear, Mulligan responded, "For my position, it is a business decision. That we have access to $400 million. We don't want to lose it and rescinding a couple resolutions is prudent because it safeguards the money and doesn't change who we are. You know, the day after these resolutions are rescinded, we'll still be the same great place to work. We'll still provide the same first-class service. The people riding our buses, and if you're a vendor, will still be the same great organization to do business with."
On Friday, the 19 members of the board of directors are set to vote on this suggestion. Ten votes are needed for the change to pass.
