Key Takeaways

• Under new rules, minority and women-owned firms at Lambert must prove they faced bias.
• Contractors need secret loan terms from competitors to keep bidding.
• Critics say the test is impossible and revives old barriers.
• The $2.8 billion airport project may lose diverse builders.
• This move fits a wider rollback of civil rights programs.

Last week, the Trump administration issued tough new guidelines at Lambert International Airport. Nearly 2,000 disadvantaged contractors learned they must prove they were treated worse than white firms. Otherwise, they cannot bid on major federal contracts. Many say the test is impossible. In effect, the policy could shut them out of a $2.8 billion terminal rebuild.

How Lambert Discrimination Guidelines Work

Under the new plan, contractors must submit a “personal narrative” with those key points:
• Show you applied for financing on terms similar to white firms.
• Provide proof you received worse terms.
• Use a “preponderance of evidence” to back your story.
The problem is clear. Bank loan deals are private. Competitors guard their financing details. Thus, the Lambert discrimination test asks firms to produce evidence they cannot access. In other words, it sets them up to fail.

A Half Century Gap

This fight hits home in St. Louis for one key reason. In 1973, the Justice Department sued Donald Trump and his father for refusing to rent apartments to Black families. Trump Management managed 39 buildings in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. The government had documents and sworn statements. Trump denied wrongdoing. He settled without paying fines or admitting fault. Now the same man demands proof of bias that he never had to show.

Impact on St. Louis Contractors

St. Louis leaders warn of big damage. From 2015 to 2019, Lambert reported 28.5 percent participation by disadvantaged firms. Those contracts fueled new wealth in neighborhoods locked out for decades. Suddenly, the rules change just as the cash flows. Minority and women-owned firms face a steep uphill battle. Adolphus Pruitt of the City NAACP called the shift a mask of “neutrality” that hides bias. In reality, he says, it upholds old advantages for white, male firms.

National Rollback of Civil Rights Programs

The airport change is part of a bigger plan. On his first day in office, President Trump revoked the 1965 order on affirmative action for federal contractors. In May, the Justice Department moved to end the $37 billion Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. That plan served 49,000 firms across the country. All federal DEI staff have been put on leave for future cuts. This agenda traces back to Project 2025, which aims to prosecute any group that keeps DEI efforts alive.

Lessons from Reagan’s Legacy

Ironically, the DBE program began under President Reagan in 1983. Back then, leaders from both parties agreed bias in contracting was real. They also agreed it needed a remedy. Now, those same Republicans are backing a plan to gut civil rights programs. Federal officials warn of a 10 percent drop in certified firms and $92 million in setup costs. Still, the real harm goes deeper than dollars. It freezes decades of progress in place.

What Comes Next for Minority Contractors

Contractors say they don’t want handouts. They want a fair chance at public work after years of exclusion. Yet now they must prove they deserved that chance all along. They must document their own oppression to stay in the game. This fight will shape who builds America’s roads, bridges, and airports—and who gets left out of the American dream.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can contractors gather proof of discrimination?

They cannot. Banks keep loan terms private. Competitors refuse to share deals. As a result, the rules demand the impossible.

What happens if a firm fails to prove bias?

They lose their ability to bid on federal contracts. That means missing out on projects like the Lambert terminal rebuild.

Why did the Trump administration change these rules now?

Officials say they want “neutral” policies. Critics argue that so-called neutrality only protects existing inequalities.

Can local leaders block these new guidelines?

They can voice strong opposition and seek legal challenges. However, federal rules typically override local policies unless courts step in.