Washington County revises DEI policies for new federal requirements

Washington County is revising how it implements diversity, equity and inclusion policies in order to comply with new federal grant requirements tied to executive orders from President Trump. Local officials say the move is necessary to protect access to $135 million in federal funding that supports housing, infrastructure and critical services for thousands of low-income residents in the county.

While the move has drawn criticism from community members who worry it signals a retreat from equity commitments, those involved say the change is necessary to avoid potential civil and criminal liability under the federal False Claims Act. The county commission is scheduled to take a final vote to affirm the policy changes Tuesday, July 22.

Washington County Board Chair Kathryn Harrington joins us to talk more about the changes that come amid broader questions about how local governments navigate new federal policies.

Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.

Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Dave Miller. Last month, the Washington County Board of Commissioners pulled an item from its agenda. The board had been scheduled to consider revising or even getting rid of the county’s five-year-old equity resolution. With that resolution, the county committed to fostering, supporting and strengthening DEI in local programs and policies. In the end, commissioners decided not to rescind or revise that resolution. Instead, they intend to bring up a new resolution tomorrow that they say reaffirms the county’s policies and programs in a lawful and non-discriminatory fashion.

Kathryn Harrington is the county chair. She joins us now to talk about what all of this really means. It’s great to have you back on Think Out Loud.

Kathryn Harrington: Thanks, Dave.

Miller: I want to start with what’s at stake here, financially. How much federal funding do you get each year in the county?

Harrington: The county last year received over $135 million of federal funding, either directly – 90% of it – or passed through the state of Oregon. So it’s a lot of money.

Miller: What kinds of things is that money for?

Harrington: Ah, great question. It goes to serve the people here in our community, whether they’re pregnant women, elderly people, to help our cities develop more affordable housing in our community, helps a lot of people stay in their homes through rental vouchers, or for rehabbing their homes. There are a lot of seniors who haven’t been able to put railings on their homes or paint the outside of their homes, so there are programs to do that. We also have job training opportunities that are available. So it’s wide ranging.

We need to sign these new contracts, and the time period between July and August is when we have these new contracts. Starting in June, we started receiving these contracts from the various department agencies, with these new conditions that we need to adhere to or we can’t move forward with the contracts and that vital funding.

Miller: In other words, the money, once again, is available. It’s somewhere in the neighborhood of $135 million, but in order to get it, you have to sign these contracts. And to do that without facing potentially serious problems, you have to know that you are abiding by what the new federal government says you must do.

I want to dig into all of this, but before we get to that, are you in basically the same situation as the other 35 counties in Oregon? I mean, we’re talking to you, one of the largest counties in the state, in the Portland metro region, but does every county have to deal with the same issue right now?

Harrington: Well, every county is receiving contracts for the various funding that they program, but the circumstances of each county differ. You have to look at, what is your financial position, what is your risk tolerance as well. So some counties are choosing to just sign them and take on the risk. Other counties perhaps will choose to not accept this money whatsoever. But at the end of the day here in Washington County, we have a majority of commissioners who are very concerned about pulling the rug out from the very people that we serve. So that’s why we’re moving forward.

Now, our understanding did change from what you mentioned earlier on our potential action, the middle of June. So we no longer believe we need to rescind our prior work, but rather, as well as in that June work, we needed to take action, as you see in this resolution, to clearly define access and opportunity, and operationalize that framework so that we continue to be in compliance with federal and state law.

Miller: I want to make sure that I understand what you’re saying. So first of all, what kinds of new strings, requirements or prohibitions has the Trump administration put on grantees like you?

Harrington: It varies somewhat, contract to contract, but what we are seeing as new language in each of these contracts is specifically complying with current executive orders. And as you know, since President Trump was inaugurated, he has signed over 100 executive orders. So, our legal team has had to look at each of those and make sure that we are doing what we’re saying we’re doing. Because if we sign these contracts that include what’s called “attestation,” that we are indeed following all these requirements, then there can be lawsuits filed on the individuals who sign these attestations, both civil or criminal.

Miller: What are the specific executive orders that you’ve been most focused on or most worried about running afoul of?

Harrington: This specific resolution and order is particularly set up in order to make sure that we are complying with the executive order with regard to not running afoul of what the Trump administration considers anti-DEI practices. So that is why we had to do a close examination of what we had been doing prior to the Trump administration, and need to take action on this access and opportunity resolution, which is based on the bedrock of our civil rights and anti-discrimination practices here in the United States … and move forward from there.

So it’s specifically on that. And I want to emphasize that point, because there has been some circulation of misrepresentation in our community that this is pertaining to immigration enforcement. That is not what this resolution and action is aimed at. However, as you and I know, we are required to obey all federal and state laws, and that includes the state sanctuary laws.

Miller: I want to put a pin in that issue. It’s a big one. And it still seems very thorny to me how you can both follow state law and federal or presidential declarations at the same time if they’re directly in opposition to each other. But sticking with the DEI stuff, I actually am frankly still a little bit confused.

Harrington: Sorry.

Miller: Well, that’s all right. Hopefully, I can find clarity for myself and listeners. Is this issue that you’ll be voting on, on this resolution tomorrow, is this about actual policies that are going to change at the county level, in order to satisfy new federal requirements, or is this about words like “diversity” and “equity”?

Harrington: Well, it certainly is about words. It’s very disappointing and frightening to me, as both a policymaker, as an elected official, but also as a resident of our wonderful United States, of Oregon, that there are certain words that, in order to accept the federal funding from this current administration, we are told we can’t use.

And some of this is still a work in progress. One of the executive orders is with regard to climate change, so we’re still in the process of assessing that to see if we need to take future action. In that arena, we’ve gotten letters from departments that are giving us guidance but not yet holding us accountable.

But in the case of, as the executive order puts it, these anti-discrimination laws – in their view – we do have to take action to clearly articulate access and opportunity. And in addition, we’re going to have to modify our strategic plan update and our website to make sure that we are complying to these federal requirements. And then implementing operational changes, too.

Miller: You said there “may be” changes to your operations as well, but in what way? What do you think is most likely? If there are going to be policy changes, what do you think is most likely? Because I think that’s what people care most about, as opposed to words on a website.

Harrington: Well, I care about them too, Dave. But the bottom line is, at the end of the day, am I willing to do harm to the thousands of people who rely upon these services and this funding each and every day? Or can we, under the framework of access and opportunity, continue to be able to make decisions based upon factors such as people’s ability, people’s background, people’s characteristics and socioeconomic status, without articulating other terms that this administration is indicating they are defining as illegal?

Miller: OK, let me see if I understand what you’re saying … Your hope is that through framing this as about access and opportunity, and through looking at different versions of human difference that may not, say, for example, touch on race, you’re hoping you can accomplish the same goals that you have over the last couple of years in a way that the current administration has no problem with. Is that what you’re saying?

Harrington: Yes. According to federal law now, you cannot discriminate based on race, color, disability status, ethnicity, national origin or other classes that are protected by federal law. So, that stands ...

Miller: And just to be clear, there’s been no federal law change in terms of that – that’s long standing. What’s new is our presidential proclamations, executive orders.

Harrington: That’s correct, but those carry the weight of federal law. And that’s been really hard for some folks to accept. An executive order has the force of federal law unless it is invalidated through legislation, found unlawful by a federal court, or revoked by the president or a successor in office.

So these executive orders stand. There are some executive orders that are enjoying temporary holds through the courts and those actions are specific to those parties that have filed on those lawsuits. We do not have the financial resources to join a lot of these lawsuits. Lawsuits involve money, ca-ching, ca-ching, and other legal liabilities. So we are doing the absolute best that we can to stay focused and thread this needle in service to our community members.

Miller: You mentioned that there are other stipulations as well, some about climate change, others about cooperating with federal law enforcement. What do you see as the most urgent issues there? We’ve been focusing so far on questions about DEI or opportunity, but when it comes to climate change language or cooperation with federal law enforcement, what are you paying the most attention to right now?

Harrington: Well, the contract where we’re seeing the climate language come up is with contracts with the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, and I’m aware of just one contract there for a highway project. So it’s much narrower, more focused. But the Trump administration is applying these requirements agency-wide, so we are still examining our work because there is climate work that is done as a result of state legislation and Metro requirements. So that’s still very much a work in progress. What we are laser focused on right now is that we have contracts for our community development block grants, our continuum of care that deals with a lot of public health and affordable housing, other human services, to the tune of over $14 million that we have to sign by Wednesday, which is why we need to take action on this resolution tomorrow night.

Beyond that, we have over $54 million of housing choice vouchers, that’s rent assistance, that supports over 3,410 households. That is also at risk. So we’re trying to make sure that we continue to be successful in receiving and programming these federal funds, but there is some assessment with particular ones we’re still having to go through. A lot of the misrepresentation that I’ve been seeing over this weekend has been positioning that this access and opportunity also applies to immigration enforcement, and that’s not the case. This resolution and order does not affect that.

We continue, and this resolution and order does say we commit to ensuring that we spend the public dollars in a manner compliant with federal, state and local laws. That has always existed, continues to exist. We have to. That’s a non-negotiable. So of course we support Oregon’s state Sanctuary Law and our law enforcement has to abide by that. There is no further action that we need to take on that. I’m disappointed that others have chosen to advocate and champion that position, that misinformation, but it’s a free country.

Miller: It’s possible you’re talking about, among other things, something that came from one of the commissioners on the board. Commissioner Fai put forward a clause that she says she would like to add to the resolution. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the State of Oregon has enacted laws establishing Oregon as a sanctuary state, limiting the use of public resources to enforce federal immigration laws and affirming the rights of all residents to access services without discrimination.”

Are you saying that you don’t support adding that clause to this resolution because you don’t think it’s necessary?

Harrington: Exactly. The second part, about making sure that people have access, is in the resolution. And the first part, about complying to state law for sanctuary status, is already there in the second “be it resolved” that I read off to you, about making sure we continue to comply with federal, state and local laws.

Miller: Has the Trump administration conditioned federal funding on places not being sanctuary states?

Harrington: I have not seen that language. We have just received a couple of contracts that have specifically called out immigration enforcement and we’re looking at those right now. But our sheriff deputies … And keep in mind, part of the misrepresentation that I saw this weekend was about this resolution and order as it pertains to police enforcement and our charter does not allow us to take any action on city policing. But we do have sheriff deputies that do patrol in our rural areas and in our urban, unincorporated areas – those neighborhoods outside of cities. And our sheriff’s office has to do the same exact thing that the rest of us have to do and that is comply with state law.

So in our agency position, we don’t have to take any action. And in fact, what Commissioner Fai has put forward is a “whereas.” It does not take any action.

Miller: Before we say goodbye, I just want to ask you about some other really significant Washington County news: the big layoffs at Intel. What is this going to mean for Washington County?

Harrington: Well, Intel employees live here in our local Washington County community. So whether it’s your friends, your neighbors, there is an effect. Intel Corporation is a long-standing valued business here in Washington County with multiple campuses. This is a big adjustment – an over 2,400 employee reduction is significant. That’s about a 12% reduction. And what that really affects are the Oregon income taxes that are paid. As far as I know, there is no reduction in their real estate holdings. That goes towards their local property taxes that Intel pays.

But we have to wait and see what happens. The biggest hit, as I mentioned, is for those income taxes, both from Intel Corporation as well as their direct employees, and all the other companies and workers throughout our community that are part of the indirect economy, as a result of Intel having that many employees and such significant operations here.

Miller: Kathryn Harrington, thanks very much.

Harrington: Thanks, Dave. Keep up the great work.

Miller: Kathryn Harrington is the chair of Washington County.

“Think Out Loud®” broadcasts live at noon every day and rebroadcasts at 8 p.m.

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983.