Vetoed! Wyoming's SF0103 Anti-DEI Bill Halted Despite Legislative Push

The Story of SF0103: Wyoming's Contentious Anti-DEI Bill Meets the Governor's Veto

In the 2025 legislative session, Wyoming lawmakers embarked on a path mirroring a contentious national trend with Senate File 0103 (SF0103), titled "Terminating and defunding diversity, equity and inclusion." The bill aimed to broadly prohibit Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and mandates within state agencies and public educational institutions, including the University of Wyoming and community colleges. Its goal, as stated in the introduced version, was to prevent the expenditure of public funds on activities perceived as promoting differential treatment or providing special benefits based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or gender dysphoria, and to ban mandatory DEI statements or training.

LegiEquity analysis flagged SF0103 with a high potential for bias, scoring an 80% Overall Bias with high confidence. The concerns were particularly acute regarding race (90% Bias, impacting Black/Hispanic communities), gender (80% Bias against Females/Males), and disability (70% Bias). This analysis suggested the bill, if enacted, could significantly disadvantage these groups by dismantling programs designed to address historical inequities and promote inclusive environments.

A Contentious Legislative Journey

Sponsored exclusively by Republican legislators, led by Senators Steinmetz, Boner, Hicks, Hutchings, and Jones, alongside Representatives Angelos, Haroldson, Lawley, Neiman, and Smith, SF0103 lacked bipartisan support from the outset. Its journey began on January 13, 2025, when it was received for introduction in the Senate.

Senate Action: Introduced on January 24th, it was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources (S05), a committee with a high power score (100.0). The committee unanimously recommended amending and passing the bill (5-0) on January 30th. The bill then moved swiftly through the Senate floor, passing Committee of the Whole (COW) on February 6th, Second Reading on February 7th, and Third Reading on February 10th with a strong vote of 26-4-1 (Yea-Nay-Absent).
House Action: Received by the House on February 10th, it was referred to the House Committee on Labor, Health & Social Services (H10) on February 12th. This committee, also influential (Power Score 85.0), recommended amending and passing the bill on February 21st with a 7-1-1 vote. The bill passed the House floor (COW Feb 24th, 2nd Reading Feb 25th). However, its path hit turbulence during the Third Reading on February 27th. An amendment (SF0103H3002 by Rep. Larsen) was adopted narrowly (32-27-3), indicating growing division, before the bill ultimately passed the House 52-7-3.
Concurrence Conflict & Resolution: The amendments added in the House proved highly controversial back in the Senate. On February 27th, the Senate stunningly refused to concur with the House amendments, failing the concurrence vote 1-28-2. This sharp reversal from the initial strong support suggested the House amendments significantly altered the bill or touched on sensitive points for Senators. A Joint Conference Committee (JCC) was appointed the same day to reconcile the differences. However, in a surprising turn, the Senate voted to recede from its non-concurrence the very next day, February 28th, with a 27-4-0 vote, effectively accepting the House's version (now designated SEA No. 0061).

Examining the Bill's Substance

The enrolled act (SEA No. 0061) maintained the core prohibition on DEI funding and activities across state government and education. It defined DEI broadly, including influencing hiring based on race/sex/etc., promoting differential treatment, conducting related trainings (except for legal compliance), or requiring DEI statements. It explicitly prohibited establishing DEI offices, hiring DEI staff, or giving preference based on race/sex/etc.

Crucially, the final version contained specific carve-outs and nuances not fully detailed in the initial description. For instance:

Federally Recognized Tribes: Explicitly exempted programs and endowments related to federally recognized Indian tribes, acknowledging their unique political status (Sec 1, 9-2-1014.4(e)).
Accreditation/Grants: Allowed institutions to submit documentation for grants or accreditation that highlights support for first-generation, low-income, or underserved students, or certifies compliance with anti-discrimination laws (Sec 1, 9-2-1014.4(c)(ii)).
Academic Freedom: Stated the act doesn't include academic course instruction, scholarly research, student organization activities, guest speakers, or data collection under the definition of a prohibited "DEI office or program" (Sec 1, 9-2-1014.4(d)).
Curriculum Restrictions: Section 21-16-2001 placed restrictions on requiring students to take courses with "related content" (defined to include critical race theory concepts, systemic bias, etc.) to fulfill degree requirements, though it exempted majors specifically focused on racial, ethnic, or gender studies under certain conditions.
Appropriation Clause: Included a $550,000 appropriation for a medical education partnership with the University of Utah, contingent on students complying with Utah's DEI laws during their training there – an ironic twist given the bill's primary purpose.

Despite the exemptions, the core thrust remained: a significant rollback of DEI initiatives funded or mandated by the state.

The Governor's Veto

After being signed by the Senate President and House Speaker on February 28th, the bill landed on the Governor's desk. The strong legislative votes, despite the concurrence hiccup, might have suggested likely passage into law. However, on March 4, 2025, Governor Mark Gordon vetoed SEA No. 0061.

While the Governor's specific reasoning isn't detailed in this data, vetoes of similar anti-DEI bills in other states often cite concerns about government overreach into academic freedom, potential negative impacts on attracting talent and federal funding, conflicts with existing anti-discrimination laws, and the vagueness of definitions leading to unintended consequences.

The veto halts SF0103, preventing its implementation. This outcome underscores the deep divisions surrounding DEI, not just between parties but potentially within the majority party itself, as evidenced by the dramatic concurrence votes. The story of SF0103 serves as a significant chapter in Wyoming's engagement with the complex and often polarizing national conversation about diversity, equity, and inclusion in public life.

LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.