For directors of the Golden Gate Bridge District, it was a $400 million decision.

It was a decision between being eligible for a huge and much-needed federal grant and a program whose objectives should still remain a priority in decision-making, regardless of whether they are a written policy.

Yes, the district board is giving in to political pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration, which has targeted DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — programs that many public agencies and businesses have in recent years built into their formal decision-making policies and priorities.

Earlier this year, Trump, by executive action, targeted DEI programs, calling them “dangerous, demeaning and immoral race and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity and inclusion.’”

His sweeping criticism is misguided.

The goal of DEI is to promote diverse representation, fairness and impartiality, and a sense of belonging and value no matter an employee’s race, religion, gender or sexual identity.

But Trump has decided that federal funding and contracts should be denied to those agencies and businesses that have DEI programs on their books.

That leaves the bridge district with a decision — either drop its DEI program or lose a $400 million five-year grant needed to modern seismic-safety upgrades for the 88-year-old bridge.

For the district’s directors, the politics were a lot more difficult than making practical sense of the decision.

The resolution repeated broad commitments to the good-government goals of promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, but revoked language on the district’s books — its procurement manual and its strategic plan — that might trip up Trump-directed federal bureaucrats.

Still, three directors, Tiburon Mayor Holli Thier among them, opposed giving in to Trump’s agenda, which she called “conservative, racist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-everything-that-is-good.”

In a 11-3 vote, though, her colleagues kept their focus on the important public need — and their public responsibility — to keep the historic bridge safe and open.

Marin Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, a bridge board member, called her vote, “a very difficult decision,” but stressed the resolution adopted by the board emphasized its priority for treating “all riders, our employees and our transportation partners with respect and dignity.”

That’s more than symbolism. That is a systemic priority.

District general manager Denis Mulligan had advised the board that the district’s specifically adopted DEI policies could be “problematic,” possibly leading to the funding being withheld.

The board could have opted to join a lawsuit filed by other public agencies challenging Trump’s anti-DEI orders, but that would have come with a cost, not only in legal fees, but, more importantly, in delays or probably losing the federal funding.

It should not surprise anyone that Trump’s administration will look for any reason to divert the funding from San Francisco, one of his frequent targets for his criticism of liberal politicians and geography that is hardly bedrock support for his agenda.

The Trump administration’s anti-DEI mandate is apparently committed to letting politics get in the way of government’s job of keeping public assets safe and in good repair.

San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma counties send a lot of tax dollars to Washington. Getting some of it back to help make sure this vital bridge survives an earthquake is more important than a symbolic mandate from the White House.

The board’s decision reflects its responsibility for maintaining a strong and safe bridge.

In its prudent and practical decision, the board’s sound public policy is trumping politics, as it should.