The FTC framed coordinated diversity efforts as a labor-market antitrust concern, warning that structured knowledge-sharing among competing firms could distort competition for legal talent.

It appears big law firms are staying quiet after receiving warnings from the Trump administration that any coordinated efforts, policies, or programs to develop diverse teams could be actionable. Their silence is likely because the latest missive – this one from the head of the Federal Trade Commission – is more along the lines of “watch your step” than “you’re breaking the law.” Also, seeing the writing on the wall, some firms already scaled back their DEI programs.  

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent warning letters to 42 major U.S. law firms on January 30 cautioning that participation in Diversity Lab’s Mansfield Certification program may expose them to liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (prohibiting collusion and other agreements that restrain trade) and Section 5 of the FTC Act (barring unfair methods of competition, including conduct that falls short of a full Sherman Act violation).” The FTC framed the issue as a labor‑market antitrust concern, warning that coordinated DEI‑related benchmarks and structured “knowledge‑sharing” among competing firms could impair independent decision‑making and distort competition for legal talent.  

At the same time, a federal court has weighed in on Mansfield in a different context—rejecting claims that the program creates unlawful quotas. Although that decision does not address antitrust theory, it is relevant to the public conversation about what Mansfield does and does not benchmark when it comes to the legal labor market.  

What is The Mansfield Rule? 

Mansfield was adopted in 2016 by a diversity testing and certification organization, Diversity Lab, during their "Women in Law Hackathon," to broaden the pool of candidates for leadership roles at America's law firms. The Women in Law Hackathon is an innovation competition (think Shark Tank) created by Diversity Lab in partnership with Stanford Law School and Bloomberg Law. Its purpose is to generate new, evidence‑based ideas to advance women in the legal profession. They named it for Arabella Mansfield who, in Iowa in 1869, became the nation's first woman admitted to practice law. 

Diversity Lab modeled Mansfield on the NFL’s 2003 "Rooney Rule," which requires teams to interview minority candidates for head‑coaching and senior positions to ensure they receive genuine opportunities. The Rooney Rule emerged after criticism of the NFL’s hiring practices, particularly the 2002 firings of two successful Black head coaches. Civil‑rights attorneys proved that Black coaches won more games on average but were hired less often and fired more frequently. In response, the NFL’s Workplace Diversity Committee – chaired by Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers – recommended the rule, which was named in his honor. 

Like the Rooney Rule, the Mansfield Rule focuses on expanding opportunity, but with a legal‑industry‑specific benchmark: firms must consider at least 30% underrepresented lawyers in candidate pools for promotions and leadership roles. Both rules aim to interrupt structural bias not by mandating outcomes, but by ensuring that qualified, diverse candidates are consistently included in leadership pipelines. Mansfield Certification Plus recognizes firms that show measurable progress toward the 30% benchmark for considering minority hires.  

The FTC’s Theory: DEI Coordination as Potential Labor‑Market Collusion 

The Trump administration has made clear its intentions to wipe away any and all DEI programs as “reverse discrimination.” In its warning letter, the FTC points to reporting that firms participate in monthly “knowledge‑sharing calls” with other Mansfield firms to discuss implementation. The Commission suggests that these calls may create avenues for reduced independent decision‑making, sharing of competitively sensitive information, and potential wage suppression. The FTC warns that any exchange of pay or benefits information among competitors could harm competition for legal talent. 

The Commission emphasizes that its letters are not findings of illegality, but cautionary notices encouraging firms to review their DEI‑related interactions with competitors. Despite the seriousness of the warnings, law firms have remained silent. Of course, they haven’t been charged with breaking any laws.  

Judicial Treatment of Mansfield: No Quotas, No Mandated Outcomes 

This is the Trump administration’s second volley at Mansfield. The first one was lobbed in the context of employment law. In a 2025 opinion in Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ, Judge Beryl Howell rejected the government’s claim that Mansfield participation reflected discriminatory hiring. “The Mansfield Rule expressly does not establish any hiring quotas or other illegally discriminatory practices, requiring only that participating law firms consider attorneys from diverse backgrounds for certain positions.” She concluded that the FTC failed to provide any evidence of any anti-discrimination law violations. Briefing in the FTC’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit begins next month.  

The administration’s assault on big law firms was a headliner during the first year of President Trump’s second term. An executive order challenged in Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ was issued with the clear intent to punish the firm for the clients it represented, the cases it pursued, and the political viewpoints the administration attributed to it, Judge John Bates decided. The order explicitly criticized Jenner & Block for engaging in what it labeled “partisan” litigation and for its association with an attorney who had publicly opposed Trump, and it imposed punitive restrictions such as suspending security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and pressuring agencies and contractors to sever ties with the firm—all measures designed to cripple its ability to function in matters involving the federal government.  

Judge John Bates struck down the order in full, finding it unconstitutional retaliation that violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on government‑imposed political orthodoxy and improperly chilled legal advocacy, noting that “few stars are as fixed” in the constitution as the rule that no official may dictate what is and what is not acceptable political viewpoints. The DOJ has appealed Judge Bates’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

Another Extra Broad View of Antitrust Law 

This also marks at least the second instance of the Trump administration trying to leverage antitrust laws to advance its ideology-driven policies. The DOJ submitted a statement of interest in favor of alternative media companies who are alleging that mainstream media companies and social media platforms colluded via the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) to suppress alternative content on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube. As the defendant publishers put it, though, TNI is a media partnership whose goal is to identify and combat disinformation harmful to the nation’s health, relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, for example, and the democratic process, such as unfounded reports challenging the legitimacy of the 2020 election (Children’s Health Defense, et al. v. Washington Post, et al., No. 1:23-cv-2735-TJK, D.DC). 

The case originally was brought in January 2023 by now-Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine Children’s Health Defense organization, which Kennedy founded, and a group of alternative media producers, Creative Destruction Media and TrialSite News among them. The alternative media companies say they were deplatformed by the publishers and platform operators because their healthcare and political views were outside the mainstream. 

The defendants, The Washington Post, the BBC, the Associated Press, and Reuters, stand by their anti-disinformation efforts and say the case fails to meet any of the requirements of the Sherman Act. The case is pending.  

Media Mergers: Another Key Aspect of Competition Law 

These interventions fit a broader pattern. Axios has documented Trump’s practice of applying regulatory leverage and public pressure to influence media ownership, shaping which companies expand and which stall in merger review.  Similar dynamics surfaced in earlier episodes—from pressuring regulators on station‑ownership caps to publicly urging approval of the Nexstar‑Tegna merger as a way to counter “fake news” competitors.  Collectively, these actions demonstrate how merger review has become another arena in which the administration seeks to reward aligned media companies and disadvantage those viewed as critical – reinforcing the same concerns about retaliatory government power that underlie the federal courts’ skepticism in the law firm cases.  

The Trump administration has also made headlines by inserting itself directly into major media‑industry mergers, often involving companies with news divisions the president has publicly criticized.  

Recent reporting shows that Trump signaled he would “be involved” in evaluating Netflix’s proposed $83 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, commenting that the deal “could be a problem” because of the market share it would create.  Days later, The Guardian reported that his financial disclosure revealed more than $1 million in bond purchases from Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery—transacted while the merger awaited regulatory review—raising concerns about political influence over the process.  At the same time, a competing hostile bid by Paramount Skydance, backed financially by Jared Kushner and connected to Trump‑aligned investors, positioned the administration even closer to decisions over who would control CNN, HBO, and other outlets frequently targeted by the President.  

Stand Up or Stand Down?  

Recent actions by the Trump administration make clear that both law firms and media companies remain prime targets. The White House perceives that they wield excessive influence and have leveraged their positions for financial and strategic gain. By invoking antitrust and other federal laws, the administration signals its determination to challenge what it sees as abuses of power—whether in the context of diversity initiatives within legal organizations or in the operations of major media partnerships.  

This ongoing scrutiny reflects a broader ideological stance: that these institutions, in the administration’s view, have crossed lines in ways that justify government intervention, both to restore competition and to curtail perceived overreach in the pursuit of profit and political objectives.  

As these legal skirmishes and regulatory warnings continue to play out, law firms and media organizations must navigate an environment of heightened enforcement and political pressure. The outcomes of these disputes will shape not only antitrust, freedom of speech, diversity initiatives, and employment practices, but the broader relationship between private power and government oversight. 

It is worth noting that the law firms warned by the FTC have robust antitrust practices or employment law practices or, in some cases, both.