116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Crowd confronts lawmakers over Iowa bill rolling back affirmative action protections
Bill advances amid protest, with no public support voiced at hearing
Feb. 5, 2026 4:48 pm
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
DES MOINES — Critics of an Iowa House bill targeting affirmative action, diversity programs and race-based preferences confronted lawmakers during a tense subcommittee hearing at the Iowa Capitol Thursday.
After Republican legislators signed off to advance the measure and ended public comment, opponents in attendance shouted “shame,” accusing lawmakers of cutting off debate on legislation they say would significantly reshape equal opportunity policies in government, education and professional licensing.
The bill removes or narrows many state requirements related to affirmative action, diversity programs and race-based preferences in Iowa government.
The measure — House Study Bill 668 — moved forward after a packed, fast-moving subcommittee meeting marked by complaints about insufficient public notice and repeated warnings from the chair about decorum after interruptions.
The bill keeps general non-discrimination language (no denying opportunity based on race, sex, religion, etc.), but eliminates many structures that actively promote or track affirmative action or minority-focused programs.
No lobbyist or member of the public spoke in favor of the bill during the hearing.
The bill is the latest in a series of Republican-led efforts in Iowa to roll back diversity and equity-related policies. It comes in the wake of Gov. Kim Reynolds signing restrictions last year on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives across public higher education institutions, local governments and other state entities. That law bars the use of state money for DEI offices or staff and broadly prohibits DEI-related activities and “preferential treatment” based on race, color, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation.
What the bill would do
HSB 668 would strike or narrow a wide range of Iowa Code provisions tied to affirmative action, workforce diversity programs and race- or citizenship-related language in state policies and licensing.
Among its major changes, the bill would:
- Remove statutory requirements that state agencies maintain formal affirmative action programs, including mandates to prepare affirmative action plans, conduct workforce diversity studies, submit annual affirmative action reports and track progress toward affirmative action goals.
- Scale back or eliminate several programs and reporting requirements designed to support or track minority participation, including efforts tied to recruiting and retaining minority or women educators and certain reporting about minority students and faculty.
- Removes provisions in Iowa Code requiring law enforcement to provide training in racial and cultural awareness and bias-prevention and de-escalation mandates linked to those provisions. Training could still occur, but it would no longer be required under those specific statutes. The change would roll back part of the training framework established under House File 2647, the 2020 police reform law Gov. Kim Reynolds signed after George Floyd’s murder, which required officers to complete annual de-escalation and anti-bias training and passed the legislature unanimously.
- Remove race-specific considerations from portions of health care planning and alter certain prioritization language in physician licensing related to medically underserved populations. The bill also strikes language in several licensing sections stating applicants are not ineligible because of citizenship, while still allowing forms to request citizenship information — a change critics said could enable discrimination based on immigration status.
- Eliminate or restructure several minority-targeted education programs and repeals the requirement for an application for a grant from a state agency to include a minority impact statement.
‘What problem are you trying to solve?’
Public comment was dominated by opponents who described the bill as a dismantling of equal opportunity systems across state employment, education, health care and law enforcement.
Des Moines attorney Ben Lynch urged lawmakers to reject the bill, calling out provisions he said would cut minority scholarships, weaken workplace equal opportunity oversight, end diversity and bias training in policing and reduce safeguards in health care planning and licensure. “Don’t take us backwards,” he told lawmakers.
Other speakers questioned whether the meeting had proper notice and asked why lawmakers were “push[ing] this through so quickly.”
Representing the Iowa Medical Society, Seth Brown told lawmakers the organization was “currently undecided,” but said members had raised questions about physician workforce impacts, especially for doctors using J-1 and H-1B visas to fill gaps in Iowa’s workforce.
Health care staffing came up repeatedly. An EMT described facilities “held up by immigrant” workers and worried the bill would worsen staffing shortages. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice board chair Vanessa Marcano-Kelly cited understaffed nursing homes and emergency rooms, arguing the state should focus on improving health care access, water quality and economic issues instead of “making up issues to waste time on.”
Dell Marion, who said he learned of the hearing late the night before, warned lawmakers if the measure becomes law, Iowa risks damaging its identity. “I was told Iowa was nice,” Marion said. “If this bill passes, Iowa will not be known for nice. It will be known for hate.”
State Sen. Renee Hardman, a Democrat from West Des Moines, also focused on the short notice for the hearing, saying the compressed timeline limited public participation. Hardman said elected officials have an obligation “to listen and learn and to lead,” which requires giving Iowans meaningful access to testify.
“We silenced them by not giving people enough notice for their voices to be heard,” she said, urging lawmakers to slow or halt the process.
State Rep. Megan Srinivas, of Des Moines, the lone Democratic member of the three-person subcommittee who opposed the bill, echoed those concerns, saying she received the bill roughly 15 hours before the hearing. She characterized the proposal as legislation that would “legalize discrimination” and argued the subcommittee format is often the only formal opportunity constituents have to weigh in.
“If you don’t even get that opportunity because you don’t get proper notification, that is not fair,” Srinivas said.
A physician, Srinivas also warned of potential workforce consequences, particularly in health care. She said immigrant doctors, nurses and support staff are critical to keeping hospitals and clinics running, especially in rural areas already facing shortages. Delays in care — sometimes months for specialist consultations — can be life-threatening, she said, questioning why lawmakers would advance a bill she believes could further strain staffing.
“This bill makes absolutely no sense,” Srinivas said.
Tense exchange between lawmakers
The hearing also featured a tense exchange involving Democratic Rep. Rob Johnson of Des Moines. Subcommittee chair Rep. Skyler Wheeler, a Republican from Hull, repeatedly warned attendees about interruptions and decorum, at one point telling people to leave if they continued to interrupt.
Wheeler also admonished Johnson during the meeting for interrupting the subcommittee, telling him to stop interjecting because he was not a member of the subcommittee.
Later on the House floor, Johnson delivered a pointed rebuke in a speech for a “point of personal privilege,” saying the subcommittee meeting silenced Iowans and disrespected those who came to testify. He called it “a travesty” that a bill “dropped in the middle of the night,” moved the next morning with limited time for public comment, and argued “every single person in this state deserves to be heard.” Johnson also said it was unacceptable for one member to “call out another member … to threaten them” during a public meeting.
In an interview with The Gazette afterward, Wheeler said Johnson was “completely out of line,” accused him of being overly interactive during a subcommittee meeting to which he wasn’t assigned to, and argued Johnson’s conduct diminished the decorum of the House.
Wheeler also disputed claims about inadequate notice, saying there was “no hard rule” requiring 24-hour notice before a subcommittee hearing on a bill. House rules state each committee shall prepare and publish a notice and agenda of each committee meeting at least one legislative day prior to the meeting, but do not specifically refer to a 24-hour notice requirement.
House Minority Leader Brian Meyer, D-Des Moines, defended Johnson’s remarks and criticized the bill’s timing, saying quick scheduling was meant to minimize public turnout and that Republicans were again prioritizing social issues over cost-of-living concerns.
Context: DEI restrictions, Supreme Court ruling and national push
Wheeler, speaking to The Gazette, pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, which held that the universities’ race-conscious admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The landmark decision overturned decades of precedent, prohibiting universities from considering race as a factor in admissions, though they can still consider how race affected an applicant's life.
Wheeler argued the ruling signaled that affirmative action is unlawful and described the bill as “code cleanup,” aimed at removing affirmative action references he considers outdated.
The bill also follows Iowa’s 2025 DEI restrictions signed by Reynolds, which prohibit state funding for DEI offices or staff and bar many DEI-related activities across schools and local governments. The law aligns Iowa with other GOP-led states following similar actions President Donald Trump has taken to dismantle DEI since returning to office.
Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice and other opponents argued the bill goes beyond admissions debates and DEI bureaucracy to remove explicit statutory protections in professional licensing, effectively setting up “citizen and noncitizen” categories without acknowledging the many lawful immigration statuses that exist. They warned that even if federal work authorization remains unchanged, striking citizenship protections in state code could open the door to discrimination or inconsistent licensing decisions.
Wheeler disputed that characterization, saying he didn’t believe the bill would change eligibility for those “legally allowed to work” in Iowa, and suggested critics were building arguments around immigration rather than the bill’s text.
What happens next
With subcommittee approval, HSB 668 is positioned to move through the committee process, where lawmakers can propose amendments and advance it to the House floor.
Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com
Daily Newsletters