By Attorney General Raúl Labrador
Dear Friends,
Most Americans agree that when government needs to contract out work with your tax dollars, it should go with whoever can do the best quality work for the lowest price. But for decades, federal programs have forced states like Idaho to reject better, cheaper bids and waste millions of your tax dollars—all to meet racial quotas.
Recently, my office led a coalition of states backing President Trump’s decision to end decades of racial discrimination in federal transportation contracting. I filed a brief urging a federal court to approve a proposed consent order that would formalize the Trump Administration’s decision to stop enforcing anti-American, race-based preferences when awarding government contracts instead of choosing the most qualified contractors.
For decades, the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program has required states receiving federal funds to award a certain percent of federal transportation contract dollars to businesses owned by minorities and women, regardless of whether those businesses submit the lowest bids. When your local road project receives federal funding, Idaho has been forced to meet demographic targets in choosing contractors, even if that means rejecting the most qualified, cost-effective bidder.
The reality has been expensive and fundamentally unfair. Over a recent 44-month period, this federal mandate forced Idaho’s Transportation Department to reject the lowest bid eight times, wasting $15.2 million in total project costs that could have been spent on other transportation projects. In one example, Idaho was required to reject a $2.2 million bid and instead accept a $2.7 million bid, costing taxpayers extra money simply to meet federal demographic requirements.
These aren’t rare occurrences. This happens routinely across the country. Extrapolating from Idaho’s experience nationwide, this program wastes approximately $2.6 billion. The program forces contractors to pass overqualified subcontractors to employ businesses that are either less qualified or more expensive, which often costs taxpayers far more than necessary.
But the $15.2 million figure represents only cases where the lowest bid was rejected outright. An MIT study shows the actual cost runs much higher because these requirements artificially inflate most contract prices. When California ended race-based contracting preferences, state contract costs fell 5.6% compared to federal contracts that still required such preferences.
When Mid-America Milling Company challenged this system as unconstitutional racial discrimination during the Biden Administration, they defended the discriminatory program in court. The Trump Administration took a principled stand. Rather than defend the indefensible, President Trump’s team acknowledged that the program violates the Constitution and agreed to stop enforcing it. That’s when Idaho stepped forward to lead this coalition in court supporting their decision.
Twenty state attorneys general and the Arizona Legislature joined Idaho because we all face the same problem: federal mandates that have forced us to discriminate against our own citizens and waste taxpayer money. The federal government cannot constitutionally require states to engage in racial discrimination as a condition of receiving federal transportation funds.
Our coalition represents states from every region of the country, from Montana to Florida, from North Dakota to Texas, because this principle transcends geography. Whether you’re building roads in Boise or bridges in Birmingham, government contracting should be based on merit and cost-effectiveness, not demographic characteristics.
The Supreme Court made clear in Students for Fair Admissions that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it. Government cannot treat citizens as simply components of a racial class rather than as individuals with equal rights and dignity. When government chooses contractors based on immutable characteristics rather than qualifications, it violates the foundational principle of equal protection under law.
Behind each bid that’s rejected are real people who are excluded from commercial opportunities solely because of their skin color or gender, but in doing this, the program is also disrespecting those who are selected for the same reason. The Constitution promises that government will treat all citizens as individuals deserving equal respect.
Idaho won’t stand by while federal programs require us to discriminate against our own citizens. We led this coalition because we believe government should judge contractors by their qualifications and their bids, not by the color of their skin. That’s sound fiscal policy and a constitutional imperative.
The Trump Administration’s decision represents a victory for equal treatment under law and fiscal responsibility. The federal government has finally acknowledged what we’ve been saying all along: you cannot eliminate discrimination with more discrimination. The only path forward is to treat all citizens with the equal dignity and respect our Constitution demands.
Idaho will continue leading the fight for equal treatment under law, whether it’s in federal contracting, college admissions, or any other area where government attempts to sort citizens into racial categories.
Best regards,
About Raúl Labrador
Raúl Labrador is the 33rd Attorney General of Idaho. The Office of the Attorney General provides legal representation for the State of Idaho. This representation is furnished to state agencies, offices and boards in the furtherance of the state's legal interests. The office is part of state government’s executive branch and its duties are laid out in the Idaho Constitution.
