Bernie Moreno

U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno recently sent a sharply worded letter to Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval regarding a city ordinance that merged the Department of Economic Inclusion with the city’s procurement department. Moreno portrayed the ordinance as a DEI initiative that could jeopardize Cincinnati’s eligibility for federal funding.

Moreno had every right to ask whether Cincinnati’s contracting policies comply with federal law. But the manner in which he did so suggested that his objective was not simply to obtain answers. His letter was accusatory, politically charged, and accompanied by the threat that Cincinnati could lose millions of dollars in federal funding. It read less like an effort at objective oversight than a political warning directed at a Democratic mayor before the legal issues had even been examined.

Yet beneath the rhetoric lies a legitimate legal question.

The merger isn't the real fight

To understand the dispute, it is important to understand what the Trump administration is trying to eliminate. Its position is not that every diversity initiative is unlawful. Rather, it argues that government programs that award contracts, jobs, or other benefits based on race or sex violate federal civil rights law and should not receive federal support.

Now consider what Cincinnati actually did.

According to Mayor Pureval, the ordinance approved June 10 did not create a new diversity program. It simply merged the Department of Economic Inclusion with the procurement department into a single office. The mayor says the purpose was to streamline city operations, eliminate duplication, improve efficiency, and not expand existing programs or increase spending.

If that is all the ordinance accomplished, the merger itself is not the legal issue.

The merger did, however, allow Moreno to raise a broader question. While his letter focused on the ordinance, the real target appears to be Cincinnati’s longstanding procurement policies involving minority- and women-owned businesses. Those underlying policies − not the departmental merger − are where the legal questions lie.

The distinction matters.

If the city’s programs provide outreach, certification, training, and assistance to ensure that qualified minority- and women-owned businesses have a fair opportunity to compete for city contracts, they do not necessarily violate federal law. If, however, contracts are awarded, or preferences are given because of race or sex rather than through lawful, merit-based procurement standards, those policies could face serious legal challenges under the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights law.

The merger simply raised the flag. The city’s longstanding procurement policies − not its administrative reorganization − are the real subject of Moreno’s inquiry.

Let the law, not threats, lead the way

There is nothing wrong with asking hard legal questions. If Cincinnati’s contracting policies violate federal law, they should be changed. If they comply with federal law, they should be defended.

What is troubling is threatening to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding before there has been a determination that the city has violated federal law. At the time of Moreno’s letter, no court had ruled that Cincinnati’s procurement policies were unlawful, nor had any formal legal process reached that conclusion. Using the leverage of federal funding to pressure a local government before that determination is made risks turning the power of public office into a political weapon rather than an instrument of impartial oversight.

Oversight should enforce the law − not prejudge it or use the threat of financial punishment to achieve political ends.

Dennis Doyle lives in Anderson Township and is a member of the Enquirer Board of Contributors.