💥 BREAKING NEWS: Washington Post praises Bondi for scrapping a DOJ racial policy and calls backlash against the move “bogus” ⚡. NQ

On Wednesday, The Washington Post committee praised US Attorney General Pam Bondi for reversing a woke doctrine at the Justice Department.

The council column defended Bondi’s measure, stating that the “unequal impact” legal doctrine she dismantled had encouraged institutions receiving Justice Department grants to focus problematically on race. 

“But if a future Democratic administration wants to recommit to woke politics, it will still have many tools at its disposal,” the council wrote . “One of these is the legal doctrine of ‘unequal impact,’ which encourages businesses, universities, and state and local governments to focus excessively on race and ethnicity.”

The Washington Post on Wednesday: The Washington Post named Pam Bondi as the judge responsible for dismantling a Justice Department legal doctrine that encouraged U.S. institutions to develop a problematic fixation on race. (Andrew)

The Post explained how the unequal impact expanded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its target of intentional discrimination “to the point of incoherence.”

“It states that different average outcomes between groups, even if there was no intent to discriminate, may still constitute a violation of civil rights. Institutions that receive grants from the Department of Justice have been regulated according to this standard, and have been prohibited from doing anything that has the ‘effect’ of creating disparities between groups,” the board said.

In Bondi’s document repealing the doctrine, he argued that it had subjected Justice Department grant recipients to sanctions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, even for “unintended disparate outcomes, which the recipient might not even know about without an investigation.”

As the Post pointed out, this previous framework would encourage certain institutions to rank their employees and students based on race and, in some cases, to “impose racial preferences” to meet quotas and avoid “unequal conditions.”

The headquarters of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC (Xinhua/Liu Jie via Getty Images)

“In some circumstances, those preferences were mandatory,” the editorial committee stated.

The Post added the Bondi quote in which he stated that the doctrine “seems to both prohibit and require the same conduct.”

Bondi’s move came after President Donald Trump’s executive order in April, which called for the elimination “of the use of unequal impact liability in all contexts, to the extent possible, to avoid violating the Constitution, federal civil rights laws and basic American ideals.”

Trump’s order stated that unequal impact “holds that there is a nearly insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination when there are differences in outcomes in certain circumstances between different races, sexes or similar groups, even if there is no apparent discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent, and even if everyone has the same opportunities to succeed.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during the announcement of a police measure at a press conference held at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC on November 19, 2025. (Tom Reuters)

The Post’s editorial committee also rejected criticism from those who claim that Bondi’s directive somehow opens the door to greater discrimination.

Claims that these reviews somehow authorize discrimination are false. They do the exact opposite. Deliberately treating one group differently from another remains illegal, as it should be.

The board added: “Intent is important. Otherwise, the federal government would have carte blanche to zealously monitor the racial composition of private institutions. Some of the Trump administration’s measures against the woke movement have been irresponsible, but this is a reasonable corrective to past excesses.”

When asked for comment, a Justice Department spokesman referred Fox News to a press release regarding Bondi’s order.

Part of it read: “The Department’s new rule reflects the best interpretation of Title VI, as repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court for more than twenty years. Title VI prohibits and will continue to prohibit intentional discrimination. The Department’s new rule ensures that recipients of federal funds will be judged by their actual conduct, not by statistical results or circumstances beyond their control.”