EEOC Consolidates Power, Signaling Aggressive, ‘America First’ Agenda Enforcement

Quick Hits

• The Republican majority on the Commission (currently composed of two Republican commissioners and one Democratic commissioner) voted to eliminate long-standing bipartisan procedures related to Commission policy decisions and meeting agendas/votes, while also requiring Commission approval for systemic cases and litigation involving fifteen or more employees.
• EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has also publicly called for white male employees to file discrimination complaints and warned that DEI programs (regardless of what they are called) may be unlawful if they consider race or sex in employment decisions.
• Employers can expect more agency activities that further align the EEOC with the enforcement and policy priorities articulated by the current administration.

The EEOC’s latest changes, combined with the Trump administration’s stated view that civil rights protections have resulted in white people being “very badly treated,” mark a significant shift in federal employment law enforcement that employers across all industries should monitor closely.

Voting and Litigation Approval Authority Changes

On January 14, 2026, the EEOC voted 2–1 to overhaul its voting protocols, giving Chair Lucas authority to approve or deny requests for Commission meetings and control which matters reach the full Commission. During the Commission meeting, Chair Lucas defended the changes, stating that “elections have consequences” and that the agency “will not be dilly-dallying,” but rather “charging forward” with the Trump administration’s agenda.

Nine days later, on January 23, 2026, the Commission voted 2–1to approve a resolution to “require Commission approval of almost all litigation.” The EEOC specifically voted to tighten restrictions on the EEOC general counsel’s authority to file lawsuits. Commissioners must now vote before the EEOC (including any of its regional offices) can pursue systemic discrimination cases, pattern-or-practice cases, matters involving fifteen or more aggrieved workers, or cases presenting “unsettled” legal issues. Chair Lucas stated that the resolution had “restore[d] to the Commission panel the critical responsibility to authorize litigation” that Congress originally entrusted to commissioners.

A group of nearly thirty civil rights organizations signed onto a letter criticizing the changes as “a power grab that appears intended to further politicize the agency.” 

DEI Enforcement Priorities

Scrutinizing corporate DEI initiatives remains central to the EEOC’s enforcement agenda. Chair Lucas has warned companies that program labels will not provide protection: “It doesn’t matter if you call that DEI or belonging or ‘EO’ or anything: If it functions like that, it’s illegal.” As such, employee resource groups, supplier diversity programs, and demographic-targeted recruitment efforts may all face enforcement scrutiny.

Moreover, in an unprecedented move, Chair Lucas posted a video on social media in December 2025, directly soliciting discrimination complaints from white male employees, stating, “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the EEOC as soon as possible …. The EEOC is committed to identifying, attacking, and eliminating all forms of race and sex discrimination, including against white male applicants and employees.”

The administration’s position was underscored by President Donald Trump’s January 7, 2026, interview with The New York Times, in which he stated that Civil Rights–era protections had resulted in white people being “very badly treated” and in which he characterized affirmative action as “reverse discrimination.”

Consistent with this position, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed suit against the State of Minnesota for alleged Title VII violations arising from a statewide affirmative action program for civil service positions. The complaint alleges that Minnesota’s legally required affirmative action practices—which include numerical goals, underutilization analysis, and pre-hire justifications requirements—constitute unlawful discrimination. 

EEOC Enforcement Tools

The EEOC has indicated it will leverage a wide range of enforcement tools to identify potential violations. Chair Lucas (as well as the DOJ) has specifically referenced the agency’s ability to search archived web content to identify companies that have changed DEI language without substantively altering underlying practices. This signals the EEOC’s skepticism regarding whether companies are making meaningful changes to their programs.

The EEOC has also rescinded Biden-era anti-harassment guidance, notably including the recent January 2026 rescission of guidance the EEOC adopted in April 2024 that stated that the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That guidance stemmed from the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII prohibits employers from discharging a worker for identifying as LGBTQ+.

Further policy changes, including expected revisions to regulations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), can now proceed without public meetings under the new voting procedures.

Legal Landscape Supporting Enforcement Shift

This interpretation of Title VII as applying to white individuals is not new. In 1976, in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company, the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibited race discrimination against white individuals (sometimes referred to as “reverse discrimination”), as well as racial minorities. Recent Supreme Court cases have widened the doorway for more claims from individuals from majority groups.

In 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court allowed a female police officer to proceed with an unlawful discrimination claim related to a job transfer to a position with the same pay but less desirable hours, thereby expanding the types of employment actions that could support a discrimination claim. Further, in 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court revived a heterosexual woman’s lawsuit alleging she’d been discriminated against in favor of employees who identified as gay, ruling that individuals from majority groups could not be held to a higher evidentiary standard to prove employment discrimination.

Next Steps for Employers

These developments represent a meaningful shift in federal employment law enforcement priorities that warrants attention from employers of all sizes. The combination of consolidated EEOC authority and explicit enforcement focus on DEI programs creates a new compliance landscape. Employers may face increased exposure to discrimination claims from majority-group employees and heightened regulatory scrutiny of diversity-related policies and programs.

Employers may wish to evaluate existing diversity initiatives, employee resource groups, and recruitment practices to understand how they operate and whether they could constitute employment actions based on protected characteristics. Employers should also ensure that workplace policies are applied consistently across all employee groups. Additionally, employers should consider revising and updating training modules to include all forms of unlawful discrimination and harassment, ensuring that training addresses protections for employees of all backgrounds, including majority-group members.

Employers should also track new developments carefully and plan for their impact. The EEOC is expected to pursue revisions to the PWFA regulations, rescind the EEO-1 Reporting requirement, and also take action to rescind the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which incorporate a single set of principles to assist employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of federal law prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These policy changes may proceed with limited public notice under the new voting procedures. Employers will want to monitor EEOC guidance, technical assistance, and emerging enforcement patterns for signals about how these policies will be applied in practice.

For more information on DEI enforcement, please join us for our upcoming webinar, “DEI Programs and Enforcement: What Employers Can Expect in 2026,” which will take place on February 24, 2026, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. The speakers, T. Scott Kelly and Nonnie L. Shivers, will discuss the latest updates from the EEOC, among other things. Register here.

Ogletree Deakins’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance, Employment Law, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts