
Fearing action by Trump, Golden Gate Bridge operator considers removing DEI references
Denis Mulligan, general manager of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, noted in a Friday memo, first reported by the San Francisco Standard, that federal grant recipients found to be promoting DEI initiatives may face penalties or be forced to return their federal funding.
Mulligan said in the memo he wants to remove a resolution the district board approved in 2020 that condemns racism and states that it should be 'safe and free of discrimination.' While he acknowledged that the resolution does not violate federal anti-discrimination law, he said the policy authorized 'anti-discrimination efforts focused on specific racial groups' and contained language that 'could be construed as inconsistent' with federal guidance.
'We're the Golden Gate Bridge. We're a symbol of our country so we'll be under scrutiny for our grants, arguably more so than the typical agency in the Bay Area,' Mulligan said in an interview Tuesday.
But at least one board member said he is opposed to Mulligan's proposal.
Board member and San Francisco Supervisor Joel Engardio said in a statement that 'rescinding resolutions that simply condemn racism and affirm dignity in the workplace would be deeply disappointing.
'These commitments aren't political — they're moral,' Engardio said. 'It should not be controversial to affirm that everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and free from discrimination. The Golden Gate Bridge is a symbol of connection. Let's not let it become a symbol of retreat.'
The memo comes amid the Trump administration's recent targeting of DEI programs. Earlier this month, a federal judge blocked the president from threatening to withdraw federal funding to San Francisco public schools over diversity programs. Several local nonprofits have also shared similar fears, while Bay Area tech giants and universities look to scale back DEI programs over related concerns.
In an interview, Mulligan told the Chronicle that the 2020 resolution explicitly commits the district to the inclusion of 'Black people, Indigenous people and people of color,' language that he believes may raise a red flag to the federal government, by spelling out certain ethnicities and not others.
His memo also recommends rescinding a 2023 resolution allowing the district to consider social equity in its procurement processes, out of similar fears regarding DEI language. The recommendation only applies to a small number of procurements that are not funded by state or federal administrations, Mulligan added.
On Friday, the district's 19-member board of directors plans to discuss the recommendations to rescind the two resolutions, as well as the memo's proposal to remove language like 'implicit bias' or 'equity' from the district's 2024 strategic plan.
Mulligan believes the board will vote in favor of the recommendations, calling it 'the preferred path to go down' following conversations with legal counsel and staff.
But Mulligan said that the bridge's symbolism is exactly what makes it a potential target for the Trump administration.
In February, the White House announced plans to eliminate the Presidio Trust, the federal entity responsible for overseeing San Francisco's treasured national park. The executive order did not mention DEI-related reasons, but rather claimed the agency was 'unnecessary' and stated that the administration would eliminate the trust 'to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' The trust, however, does not rely on federal funding for operations.
Mulligan noted that the bridge district plans to sign a new $400 million grant agreement with the Federal Highway Administration, and has plans to sign several certifications and insurances with the Federal Transit Administration as early as next week. Under the Biden administration, the FHA announced it would award the $400 million grant to the district to fund improvements on the bridge's seismic resilience.
The bridge district has not received any formal threat from the Trump administration regarding the language in the two resolutions or the strategic plan, according to Mulligan. These preemptive actions aim to ensure that grant allocations and subsequent construction plans proceed smoothly, he said, adding that the funding allocations will also create hundreds of jobs.
Mulligan explained an alternative to removing DEI messaging could involve suing the Trump administration if funding were withheld, but that the option would create additional delays with appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.
'If you have other options,' he said, 'I would recommend that you not bet $400 million on how the Supreme Court is going to rule.'
'Ultimately, it's a business decision — a business decision that doesn't change who we are,' Mulligan added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT To Explain Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' To Me Like I'm 12 — Here's What It Said
I'm no stranger to sweeping legislation. I have 30 years of combined experience covering politics and state government, advocating for healthcare and education nonprofits, and negotiating policy from both sides of the table. Discover More: Try This: However, when President Donald Trump unveiled his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' even I had to pause. What exactly is in it? What's at stake for everyday people now and in the future? I asked ChatGPT to cut through the noise and condense sprawling policy documents to provide me with a clear, emotionally neutral summary. In other words, I asked ChatGPT to explain it in a way that I would understand, as if I were a 12-year-old. Here's what it said. It's All In the Branding There's no official legislation called the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' According to ChatGPT, it's a branding phrase Trump used to signal his agenda. It includes tax cuts, deep rollbacks, and restructuring of social safety nets, carrying significant implications for energy, education, and public debt. Read Now: What Does It Mean for Average Americans? One of my first questions while reviewing any public policy, including Trump's budget bill, is how it would affect regular citizens. Same with ChatGPT. I asked how Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would affect average Americans. It said that workers could see slightly larger paychecks if payroll taxes are reduced. However, there's a catch. 'Those same payroll taxes fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, and without a replacement funding mechanism, the long-term stability of those benefits could be in jeopardy,' ChatGPT said. 'We've seen versions of this play out before: short-term relief, long-term risk.' Healthcare on the Chopping Block For those who rely on the Affordable Care Act, it could bring significant disruption. According to ChatGPT, 'Trump has repeatedly signaled interest in dismantling parts of the ACA. That could mean higher premiums, fewer protections for people with preexisting conditions, and a market-wide ripple effect for anyone who buys insurance independently or through the exchanges.' While the bill doesn't eliminate the ACA outright, it lays the groundwork for targeted rollbacks that could weaken coverage and affordability. For millions of Americans, especially gig workers, freelancers, and early retirees, this isn't just a policy; it's a potential threat to their health and finances. Student Debt Relief Could Disappear Tucked into the Big Beautiful Bill are provisions that would unwind key aspects of the Biden administration's student debt relief efforts. While not framed explicitly as an attack on borrowers, the bill signals a sharp policy reversal, one that could shut down or restrict forgiveness programs and income-driven repayment options. According to ChatGPT, 'If you have student loans or are counting on forgiveness programs, they could disappear overnight. The bill includes a rollback of debt relief efforts and the potential return of higher interest rates for federal loans. And if you're a parent planning for college, the financial aid landscape could shift beneath your feet.' Social Security Is Fine Until It Isn't While the Big Beautiful Bill doesn't explicitly cut Social Security, its structural changes to payroll taxes and entitlement spending raise serious questions about long-term funding. By lowering or eliminating certain employer-employee tax obligations, the bill could weaken the primary revenue stream that supports Social Security's solvency. ChatGPT explained: 'Reducing payroll taxes without a clear replacement funding mechanism puts pressure on programs like Social Security and Medicare. Even if benefits aren't cut immediately, the financial sustainability of those programs becomes more fragile.' For retirees and future beneficiaries alike, this isn't just theoretical. A weakened Social Security trust fund could lead to delayed payments, reduced benefits, or increased retirement age, all of which disproportionately affect low-income earners and workers with physically demanding jobs. The Real Power Play From an AI and systems-thinking perspective, the 'Big Beautiful Bill' revealed something deeper: it's not just about the policies; it's about who benefits from speed and opacity. According to ChatGPT: 'Wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists can plan for these changes before they hit. They have access, leverage, and legal teams. The average worker? They're just trying to make rent and keep the lights on.' With a degree of self-awareness, ChatGPT said. 'While AI can help decode the structure, it can't shield anyone from the real-world consequences. That's why clarity, accountability, and deliberate scrutiny still matter. Because in a system where speed favors power, the rest of us need time to see clearly, before the ground shifts beneath our feet.' More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT To Explain Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' To Me Like I'm 12 — Here's What It Said
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dana White explains why he's hesitant to put Jon Jones on UFC White House card
NEW ORLEANS – Dana White isn't so sure he'd feel comfortable booking Jon Jones on the promotion's highly anticipated card at the White House. With the event just shy of a year away after President Donald Trump's recent announcement, White admits it's too way too soon to matchmake the card. However, Jones repeatedly has mentioned the White House card being what could bring him out of retirement. White explained to reporters at Smoothie King Center on Saturday after UFC 318 that he has some hesitancy to oblige Jones' request. "It's not even about him winning the belt," White told MMA Junkie and other reporters. "You know how I felt about him. You know I can't risk putting him in big positions in a big spot and have something go wrong – especially the White House card." White's hesitance stems from Jones' long history of transgressions, one of which ruined the milestone UFC 200 that was supposed to be headlined by Jones vs. Daniel Cormier. Jones was flagged for an anti-doping violation during fight week, and the bout was canceled. Since Trump's impromptu announcement of a UFC card coinciding with the U.S.'s 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026, fighters have flocked to virtually raise their hands on social media for a spot on the card. From Jones to Conor McGregor to Nate Diaz, the working idea has caught the attention of many. Despite this, White said that, for now, his focus is simply on operational logistics. "I have other problems," White said. "I'm dealing with the logistics and all the things on figuring out how to make this thing happen. How do we want to do it? I'm going to fly out there in about 10 days, two weeks, and we're going to have all the renderings done. We'll sit down with (Trump) and go through the renderings and see what he wants to do and what he doesn't want to do." This article originally appeared on MMA Junkie: Dana White uneasy about putting Jon Jones on UFC White House card


Politico
23 minutes ago
- Politico
How the 2017 Trump tax cuts made the ‘big, beautiful bill' so expensive
Congressional Republicans really like the 2017 Trump tax cuts. It's why the 'big, beautiful bill' costs so much. The decision to either extend those cuts or make them permanent before their year-end expiration date was the driving force behind the original, $2.4 trillion price tag of the House-passed megabill. Then the Senate GOP went even further, deepening the financial impact of the vast domestic policy package. That exacerbated the string of intraparty fights that consumed Republicans for weeks. Even as different factions squared off over issues such as slashing Medicaid — hundreds of billions here, tens of billions there — the extension of the 2017 tax cuts had already set the table. In the end, the Senate added another $1 trillion to the price tag. Detailed final estimates from Congress' scorekeeper haven't yet been released, but the overall picture is clear: The cost of President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending legislation was inflated by the desire to extend the tax cuts from his first administration. Other political fights shifted the price tag from there, but there was not much the staunchest deficit hawks could do but chip away at the margins. 'This was going to be a fiscal challenge from the start, because of how expensive it is to extend [the 2017 cuts],' said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center. Here's how the bill's cost ballooned, starting with its initial cost: $2.4 trillion added to the federal deficit over 10 years.