Ford described diversity as part of JTA’s contracting expectations and lasting culture. Florida’s governor, attorney general and Legislature have taken a sharply different position. As JTA cuts jobs and bus service, the disagreement has become a test of what taxpayers expect from public leadership.

Ford Said Diversity Was Part of How He Led JTA

Nat Ford did more than endorse diversity in general terms. In a 2023 episode of The P3 Project for Diverse Entrepreneurs, the then-CEO described how his experience at Atlanta’s MARTA system shaped his view of transportation contracting. He recalled seeing small minority-owned and women-owned businesses gain experience as subcontractors and eventually become prime contractors. He said he carried that approach through later work in San Francisco and Jacksonville.

At JTA, Ford identified a distinction that matters in Florida’s current debate. Federally funded transit projects commonly had Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, or DBE, participation goals, he said, while much of JTA’s road construction used local dollars and lacked the same guideposts. Ford nevertheless said Northeast Florida road builders knew what JTA expected: diversity among the teams delivering its projects. His account describes an expectation he encouraged and monitored through leadership, including where federal DBE goals did not provide the same direction.

Ford’s larger ambition was cultural. He spoke of hiring people for his leadership team and making “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging” part of JTA’s ethos. A culture established that way, he argued, could last beyond any one CEO or board. That is the point at which a contracting policy becomes a question about how an agency recruits leaders, makes decisions and carries its priorities from one administration to the next.

DeSantis and Uthmeier Have Chosen a Different Standard

Governor Ron DeSantis has argued that government decisions should turn on individual merit rather than race or other protected characteristics. When he signed legislation restricting local government DEI programs in Jacksonville this April, his office said counties and municipalities should not use taxpayer money to support those initiatives. Supporters framed the law as a protection against government preferences and spending they regard as discriminatory.

Attorney General James Uthmeier has taken that argument into government contracting. In a January 2026 opinion, he contended that Florida laws calling for race-based state action are presumptively unconstitutional, specifically criticizing minority contracting spending goals. The opinion states the attorney general’s legal position; it does not determine that Ford or JTA violated the law. Still, Ford’s description of diversity expectations on locally funded projects presents precisely the sort of public practice that invites questions under Uthmeier’s stated philosophy.

The Legislature passed SB 1134, which DeSantis signed in April. Beginning January 1, 2027, it restricts DEI offices, programs, spending and certain contract practices by counties and municipalities. The enacted text expressly addresses those local governments, while JTA describes itself as an independent state agency; the law should not simply be declared a direct ban on every JTA activity. It does, however, show the direction Florida’s elected leadership has chosen, and its rules governing city or county funds and contracts make local spending relationships important to examine.

P3 PROJECT PODCAST with the Fords.

The Conflict Runs Deeper Than a Written Policy

Ford’s own explanation shows why changing a manual may not settle the issue. He said he selected leaders, monitored contracting progress and wanted an ethos that would survive changes at the top. If those practices shaped personnel decisions, vendor relationships or the way contracts were evaluated, their effects could continue even after formal goals changed. Determining whether they did requires hiring criteria, contract files, evaluation records and actual outcomes—not an assumption based on employees’ identities.

That distinction is central to both sides’ arguments. Critics of DEI ask whether a public agency allowed race or sex to influence who was hired, promoted or awarded work, and whether every candidate and firm was judged by the same standards. Supporters ask whether a process described as neutral gives qualified businesses a fair opportunity when established networks already dominate public contracting. Both claims can be tested against records of qualifications, competition, prices, performance and participation.

The debate itself also has a longer history than the recent use of the term “DEI.” Congress first enacted a federal DBE provision in 1983, and transportation agencies have operated under versions of that program for decades. Federal rules have since changed: the U.S. Department of Transportation removed automatic race- and sex-based presumptions of disadvantage in 2025 and finalized revisions this month calling for individualized determinations. JTA has published guidance for reevaluating firms under those changes, so Ford’s 2023 remarks should not be treated as a complete account of JTA’s procedures in September 2026.

JTA’s Financial Crisis Raises the Stakes

The policy clash arrives while JTA is making cuts that riders and workers will feel. The authority says it faces a $39 million budget shortfall and plans to eliminate 44 administrative positions and up to 150 operations positions. It also announced reduced weekday bus service, a November pause for the Skyway and a December pause for NAVI. JTA says ending professional services and other contracts will save approximately $25 million.

Those figures make management choices a legitimate subject of scrutiny. City Council auditors previously identified an $8.4 million paratransit budgeting problem because a service contract had not been budgeted for the full year, along with $7.4 million in employee benefit expenses that had not been budgeted accurately. Those are concrete financial findings. No finding cited here attributes either error to DEI hiring or contracting.

Ford’s continuing pay adds another visible contrast. JTA says he remains under his contract through October 21, available on call to answer staff questions, even as employees face layoffs. His previously disclosed annual salary of $475,904 works out to about $39,659 per month, although that monthly figure is a salary calculation, not a separate advisory fee. Ford is due to take the CEO position at Dallas Area Rapid Transit after leaving JTA.

What Each Side Will See in the Same Record

A conservative critique is easy to anticipate: a highly paid CEO said he built a lasting DEI culture, extended diversity expectations into locally funded contracting, and is departing as his agency cuts workers and service. From that viewpoint, JTA’s crisis will sharpen questions about whether leadership prioritized ideology and ambitious projects over reliable operations, sound budgets and measurable performance. The financial findings warrant those management questions. They do not, on their own, establish that diversity initiatives produced the deficit.

A supporter of Ford’s approach will read the same remarks differently. Transportation projects create substantial business opportunities, and Ford argued that opening them to qualified firms outside established networks improved both opportunity and problem-solving. From that viewpoint, the question is whether JTA could pursue broader participation while maintaining rigorous standards for hiring, contract awards and financial management. A diverse workforce and a balanced budget are not opposing measures of success; taxpayers are entitled to demand evidence of both opportunity and competence.

The political consequences extend beyond Ford. Leaders who favor DEI could seek to restore or expand such policies if they gain governing power, while leaders aligned with DeSantis and Uthmeier may continue pressing to remove preferences and taxpayer-funded programs. Whether Florida law changes will depend on future elections and legislation. At JTA, the immediate task is more specific: establish what practices actually operated, who approved them, what they cost and how the agency performed.

Does the Attorney General’s Subpoena Concern DEI?

The attorney general’s office has now subpoenaed JTA records. Reporting on an internal description of that request says it includes contracts with an organizational development firm, communications involving Ford, his wife and the firm’s owner, and records concerning tuition assistance. That reported scope makes leadership practices and outside consulting relevant subjects of inquiry. It does not establish that DEI is the reason for the subpoena or identify the firm as WSP.

Ford’s podcast gives the public a clear statement of the culture he wanted to build. Uthmeier’s opinion and DeSantis’ legislation give the public an equally clear statement of the state leadership’s opposing view. JTA’s financial records will have to answer a different question: how the agency made its hiring, contracting and spending decisions, and whether those decisions served riders and taxpayers. That is where the political argument can be tested against the evidence.

THE JTA AT A CROSSROADS SERIES!