GSA Proposes Revised DEI-Related SAM Certifications for Federal Grantees

The General Services Administration (GSA) recently published a notice requesting public comment on changes to the standard certifications that entities must make when registering in the System for Award Management (SAM). These proposed updates are designed to align SAM certifications with the priorities set out in Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit‑Based Opportunity, and implementing guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Importantly, this proposal is currently focused on federal financial assistance recipients — such as universities, nonprofits, and organizations applying for grants or cooperative agreements — rather than traditional federal contractors. However, there is also a pending proposal at the Office of Management and Budget that would address the required EO 14173 certifications for federal contractors. That proposal has not yet been made public and has been under review since April 2025.

What’s in the Proposal?

At the heart of the proposal is a revision to the Financial Assistance General Representations and Certifications that grantees and applicants submit as part of SAM registration. Under the draft language, registering entities would be required to:

• Certify they will comply with the U.S. Constitution, all federal laws, and relevant executive orders that prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race or color in federally funded programs.
• Make additional certifications related to immigration and national security, including attesting that they will not knowingly harbor or recruit illegal aliens or engage in activities that threaten public safety or national security.
• Agree to abide by a series of laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies, including the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3279, 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 1001, and the Administrative False Claims Act of 2023, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq.

Curiously, the certification specifically references only race and color discrimination, even though the referenced laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of other protected traits. In addition, the certification borrows language from the July 2025 DOJ guidance, specifically citing examples of practices that “may” violate applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws as part of the required attestation:

(i) Granting preferential treatment based on race or color, such as race-based scholarships or programs, preferential hiring or promotion practices, or access to facilities or resources based on race or ethnicity, including through the use of “cultural competence” requirements, “overcoming obstacles” narratives, or “diversity statements;”

(ii) Segregation based on race or color, such as race-based training sessions, segregation in facilities or resources, or implicit segregation through program eligibility;

(iii) Other unlawful use of race or color as criteria, such as race-based “diverse slate” policies in hiring, race-based selection for contracts, or race-based program participation or resource allocation;

(iv) Training programs that stereotype, exclude, or single out individuals based on protected characteristics or create a hostile environment; or

(v) Retaliation by taking adverse actions against employees, participants, or beneficiaries because they engage in protected activities related to opposing DEI practices they reasonably believe violate federal antidiscrimination laws. Protected activities include raising concerns or filing complaints about, or objecting to or refusing to participate in, discriminatory programs, trainings, or policies;” [Emphasis added]

The continued use of the word “may” leads to further ambiguity for federal grantees – leaving undefined a complete list of the types of employment practices the Administration believes are problematic. For practitioners, the best way to ensure compliance with these proposed certifications if finalized will be through ongoing reviews of employment policies and programs from both a qualitative and quantitative lens.

Why It Matters

If finalized in its current form, the GSA’s proposal would change the compliance obligations that grantees agree to at the point of SAM registration — a central step in securing and maintaining federal funding. Rather than relying solely on agency‑specific award terms and conditions, the updated SAM certifications would create a uniform, government‑wide attestation requirement that applies across agencies.

That uniformity could significantly streamline how agencies enforce antidiscrimination compliance. But it also centralizes compliance risk: false or inaccurate certifications made in SAM could expose an entity to enforcement risk under statutes like the False Claims Act if DOJ chooses to pursue violations tied to these representations.

Legal and Compliance Questions

The proposed changes come at a time when courts and agencies are grappling with how EO 14173’s anti-discrimination provisions will play out in practice. Recent litigation challenged the “Certification Provision” of EO 14173 that required entities to certify they do not operate unlawful DEI programs. Although a lower court initially enjoined enforcement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently vacated that injunction, allowing the certification requirement to remain in effect while the case proceeds.

The court’s decision adds to the urgency for grantees and contractors to understand how updated SAM certifications could affect long‑term compliance and risk exposure. Other legal challenges remain pending, and indeed, the proposed certification itself acknowledges these challenges, noting that the proposed certifications will be deemed “inapplicable” where subject to an active court order or injunction binding on a particular recipient and awarding agency.

What Organizations Should Do Now

With public comments on the GSA proposal due by March 30, 2026, organizations that receive federal financial assistance should:

• Review the draft certification language in detail to understand the scope and implications of the proposed attestations.
• Evaluate current policies and programs, especially those related to DEI, to determine whether any could be interpreted as conflicting with the proposed certification requirements. Reviewing policy language may not be enough – regular review of employment decisions through workforce analytics will give organizations the support they need to make these required certifications.
• Consider submitting comments to GSA during the public comment period to raise concerns or seek clarification on ambiguous language.

Even organizations that are not direct recipients of federal grants should pay close attention since similar certification requirements are expected for federal contractors soon.

Bottom Line

GSA’s SAM certification proposal marks another step in implementing EO 14173’s vision of anti-discrimination compliance through a centralized federal funding portal. While designed to align with current DOJ guidance, the draft language raises compliance challenges and legal questions for funding recipients. As the proposal moves through the public comment process, proactive engagement and ongoing audits of employment policies and decisions will be key to navigating the evolving federal funding compliance landscape.

Federal contractors should pay close attention – as we expect the Trump Administration to also release EO 14173 certification requirements for those holding federal contracts. Now is the time to prepare for certification as the Administration continues to aggressively enforce its vision of nondiscrimination requirements under federal law.