Back to Bills

Add LGBTQI+ Inclusion To Financial Regulators

Full Title:
To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to expand the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion to encompass LGBTQI+ inclusion, and for other purposes.

Summary#

This bill would change the Dodd-Frank Act so the federal Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWIs) also cover LGBTQI+ inclusion. The main change is to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the groups those offices are meant to serve and track. The broad goal is to expand diversity, equity, and inclusion work inside federal financial agencies to include LGBTQI+ people.

  • Main change: The bill adds LGBTQI+ inclusion to the stated scope of OMWIs.
  • Who it affects: It targets agencies that already have OMWIs (federal financial regulators) and the people and firms they oversee or contract with.
  • What is unclear: The publicly supplied material does not include the bill text here, so specific duties, reporting rules, data collection requirements, definitions, timelines, or enforcement steps are not available.

What it means for you#

  • Employees of federal financial agencies (for example: bank regulators): This could mean OMWI programs, training, and workplace policies will explicitly include LGBTQI+ employees. It may lead to new data collection on workforce composition by sexual orientation and gender identity, if the bill requires it.
  • Job applicants and current staff: The bill could broaden non-discrimination and outreach language. It may affect recruitment, retention, or promotion efforts that are overseen or guided by OMWIs.
  • Contractors and vendors who do business with those agencies: Agencies might ask for more information about contractor diversity that includes LGBTQI+ measures, or give procurement preference or reporting duties tied to inclusion goals — if the bill requires that.
  • Financial institutions supervised by those agencies: The bill may encourage regulators to include LGBTQI+ matters in guidance or examinations related to diversity policies. The bill text is not shown here, so whether supervisors gain new enforcement tools is unclear.
  • General public / taxpayers: Direct everyday effects are likely limited. Any impact would come through agency programs and rules rather than changes to private-sector law.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible costs that could arise (based on what such a change typically requires):

  • Agencies may need staff time or new staff to expand OMWI work to cover LGBTQI+ issues.
  • There could be costs for training, outreach, and updating data systems to track new demographic information.
  • If new reporting or contractor requirements are added, contractors and vendors may face compliance costs.
    All of the above are potential and depend on the bill’s specific text and any accompanying fiscal notes.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to make federal diversity offices explicitly responsible for LGBTQI+ inclusion, extending protections and attention beyond race and gender.
  • Supporters may argue this could close a gap in data and policy by making sexual orientation and gender identity part of agency diversity assessments.
  • The change could be seen as improving fairness in hiring, promotion, contracting, and workplace climate inside financial regulatory agencies.
  • Adding LGBTQI+ to OMWI missions could encourage better outreach and tailored programs for underrepresented employees.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the bill does not, in the available material, show how agencies would collect sensitive information about sexual orientation or gender identity while protecting privacy.
  • The bill may increase administrative work and costs for agencies and contractors; exact amounts are not provided.
  • It is unclear whether the change would create new legal obligations for private firms or mainly affect internal agency practices. That uncertainty could make implementation harder to plan.
  • If definitions (for example, of “LGBTQI+”) or enforcement mechanisms are left vague, agencies may face uneven application or legal challenges.