Following the 2024 presidential election, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), other federal agencies and the executive branch have significantly shifted their priorities from those under the prior administration. Employers can expect these changes in federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) trends to both continue and accelerate throughout 2026. In 2026, employers can expect to see the EEOC prioritize the following issues:

• Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) motivated race and sex discrimination;

• Reverse discrimination;

• Sex discrimination (including a shift away from protections for sexual orientation and gender identity);

• Pregnancy discrimination and accommodations;

• National origin discrimination, with a particular focus on anti-American bias; and

• Religious discrimination.

In addition, in October 2025, the EEOC restored its quorum, so employers may anticipate increased rulemaking and guidance throughout 2026.

2026 Federal EEO Trends

There have been significant shifts in priorities regarding the enforcement of employment discrimination and harassment laws under both the current presidential administration and federal agencies responsible for enforcing federal EEO laws, such as the EEOC, in 2025. These trends are expected to continue and accelerate in 2026. Key updates in priorities and related litigation are outlined below.

DEI

One of the current EEOC’s top priorities, as included in a statement by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, is “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” Throughout 2025, the EEOC, the executive branch and other federal agencies have taken steps to further this aim, and employers can expect this to be a focus in 2026 as well.

On Jan. 21, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order (EO) aimed at combating illegal DEI programs. The EO orders all federal agencies to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs and activities. The EO does not define “illegal DEI” but indicates that illegal DEI programs are those that violate civil rights laws protecting individuals from discrimination based on federally protected traits (including those traits protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII)—race, color, religion, sex or national origin).

Following Trump’s EO, the EEOC and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on March 19, 2025, issued joint guidance on illegal and discriminatory DEI practices. The EEOC also issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding DEI-related discrimination. The guidance identifies instances of potential DEI-related discrimination in the workplace, including:

• Disparate treatment in employment actions (e.g., hiring; firing; compensation; access to training, mentoring or workplace networking; and selection for interviews, including inclusion in a candidate pool) that is motivated by a protected trait;
• Limiting, segregating or classifying employees based on a protected trait in a way that deprives them of employment opportunities (e.g., limiting membership in workplace groups, such as employee resource groups or affinity groups, to members of a particular protected class);
• Engaging in workplace harassment based on a protected trait (e.g., DEI training may constitute illegal harassment if it is so severe or frequent as to be intimidating, hostile or abusive); and
• Retaliating against employees who engage in protected activity (e.g., objecting to DEI-related discrimination, participating in an investigation or filing a charge).

Further, on July 29, 2025, the DOJ issued a memorandum to recipients of federal funding to provide guidance on unlawful DEI programs. The guidance clarifies the application of federal antidiscrimination laws, including Title VII, to DEI and related programs and provides employer best practices for compliance.  The memorandum provides a nonexhaustive list of unlawful practices that could result in revocation of grant funding, including:

• Preferential treatment based on protected characteristics (e.g., race-based programs, preferential hiring or promotion practices, and access to facilities or resources based on race or ethnicity);
• Prohibited use of proxies for protected characteristics (e.g., cultural competence requirements, geographic or institutional targeting, and “overcoming obstacles” narrative or diversity statement requirements);
• Segregation based on protected characteristics (e.g., race-based training sessions, segregation in facilities or resources, implicit segregation through program eligibility, race-based candidate pool selection, sex-based selection for contracts, and race- or sex-based program participation); and
• Training programs that promote discrimination or hostile environments (e.g., trainings that include statements stereotyping individuals based on protected characteristics).

The DOJ memorandum also outlines several best practices federal funding recipients may follow to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws. Such practices include the following:

• Ensure inclusive access. Ensure workplace programs, activities and resources are open to all qualified individuals, regardless of their protected characteristic (other than necessary sex separation where biological differences implicate privacy, safety or athletic opportunity).
• Focus on skills and qualifications. Base selection decisions on specific, measurable skills and qualifications related to job performance or program participation.
• Prohibit demographic-driven criteria. Discontinue programs or policies designed to achieve discriminatory outcomes, even those using facially neutral means.
• Document legitimate rationales. Document clear, legitimate and nondiscriminatory rationales used in employment decisions.
• Scrutinize neutral criteria for proxy effects. Before implementing facially neutral criteria, rigorously evaluate and document whether they are proxies for a protected characteristic.
• Eliminate diversity quotas. Discontinue policies that mandate representation of specific protected groups in candidate pools, hiring panels or final selections and focus solely on nondiscriminatory performance metrics.
• Avoid exclusionary training programs. Ensure trainings are open to all qualified participants, regardless of protected trait, avoid segregating participants into groups based on their protected traits, and do not require participants to affirm specific ideological positions or confess to personal biases or privileges.
• Include nondiscrimination clauses in contracts with third parties and monitor compliance. Incorporate nondiscrimination clauses in grant agreements, contracts or partnership agreements, monitor third-party federal funding recipients to ensure ongoing compliance, audit programs for discriminatory practices, and terminate funding for noncompliant programs.
• Establish clear anti-retaliation procedures and create safe reporting mechanisms. Implement and communicate policies that prohibit retaliation against individuals who engage in protected activities, such as raising concerns, filing complaints or refusing to participate in nondiscriminatory programs. Include such policies in employee handbooks and provide confidential reporting channels.

Although the EO and EEOC and DOJ guidance do not alter existing law, which has always banned consideration of an individual’s protected trait in employment decisions, they provide insight into how DEI-related discrimination claims may be evaluated and how employers may prevent such claims. In light of the guidance, employers may consider reviewing existing DEI practices to ensure they do not discriminate on the basis of a federally protected trait. For example, employers may wish to review existing hiring and interview selection practices, employee resource and affinity group or training program membership guidelines, and workplace trainings to confirm they do not discriminate against any protected class.

Reverse Discrimination

Another trend that employers may see in 2026 is an increase in reverse discrimination claims in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the appropriate evidentiary standard for such claims. Further, the enforcement of reverse discrimination claims aligns with the EEOC’s goals of combating DEI-related discrimination, as one of the arguments against DEI initiatives is that they result in reverse discrimination. The traditional framework for analyzing Title VII discrimination claims generally requires an initial showing that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive based on the individual’s protected trait. However, circuit courts historically disagreed on whether individuals alleging discrimination based on their membership in a majority group (e.g., status as white, heterosexual or male) must also show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

On June 5, 2025, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the requirement for additional background circumstances is inconsistent with Title VII’s text and Supreme Court case law. The Supreme Court explained that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s protected trait and does not distinguish between minority-group plaintiffs and majority-group plaintiffs. Instead, all discrimination claims are subject to the same evidentiary standard, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a member of a majority or minority group.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling does not impose new obligations on employers, it establishes a uniform standard for individuals alleging any claim of employment discrimination, including reverse discrimination. In some jurisdictions, reverse discrimination claims were subject to a heightened evidentiary standard, making it harder for majority group members to bring reverse discrimination claims. Following the Supreme Court decision, it will be easier for such individuals to allege reverse discrimination, which may increase the volume of such claims.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Both the Trump administration and the EEOC have signaled a shift away from protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an EO to revoke EO 13988, signed by former President Joe Biden on Jan. 20, 2021. EO 13988 aimed to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including in the workplace. Moreover, in a statement on the EEOC’s webpage, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas stated that one of the agency’s priorities is “defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights, including women’s rights to single-sex spaces.”

Relatedly, on April 29, 2024, the EEOC issued an updated Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (Enforcement Guidance). Among the updates, the EEOC added protections for gender identity and sexual orientation harassment to incorporate case law, including the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which holds discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII. On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the EEOC exceeded its authority in expanding the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” and that neither Title VII nor the ruling in Bostock defines “sex” accordingly. In its ruling, the Texas District Court vacated related elements of the Enforcement Guidance.

Although the Texas ruling affects how the EEOC may evaluate claims of harassment at the federal level, Bostock still prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers may also be subject to state or local laws that prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity harassment and discrimination. Therefore, employers should continue to ensure compliance with all relevant discrimination and harassment laws and guidance.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide employees and applicants with reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Since the PWFA took effect in 2023, the EEOC has been active in enforcing its requirements. PWFA enforcement has continued to be a focus of the current EEOC in 2025; however, the agency has signaled its opposition to certain of the law’s provisions, including those that require accommodations for abortions.

In a ruling that aligns with the current EEOC’s stance, on May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana vacated the EEOC’s requirement that employers must accommodate elective abortions and the inclusion of abortion as a pregnancy-related medical condition for purposes of the PWFA. Pursuant to the ruling, the PWFA no longer requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for purely elective abortions. However, covered employers must still provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy terminations, including abortions, that are necessary to treat a medical condition related to pregnancy.

Employers may expect to see continued enforcement of the PWFA in 2026 but with a shift away from enforcement of certain provisions, such as those related to pregnancy terminations.

National Origin Discrimination

The EEOC has also noted an emphasis on the enforcement of Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination. In a statement on the EEOC’s webpage, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas stated that one of the agency’s priorities is “protecting American workers from anti-American national origin discrimination.” In connection with this, on Nov. 19, 2025, the EEOC issued a technical assistance document, Discrimination Against American Workers Is Against the Law, which provides guidance specifically on national origin discrimination against American workers in favor of foreign workers. The guidance provides examples of discrimination against Americans in the workplace, including:

• Discriminatory job advertisements, including ads that say the employer prefers or requires applicants from a particular country or with a particular visa status;
• Disparate treatment, including discrimination in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, including but not limited to hiring, firing, job assignments, compensation, training, fringe benefits, promotion and demotion. Examples of disparate treatment include firing American workers who are on the “bench” between assignments at a higher rate than employees on guest visas or making it more difficult for applicants from one national origin to apply for positions;
• Harassment based on national origin, including unwelcome remarks or conduct based on national origin. Harassment is illegal when it results in an adverse change to a term, condition or privilege of employment, or is so frequent or severe as to be intimidating, hostile or abusive; and
• Retaliation by an employer because an individual engaged in protected activity, such as objecting to national origin discrimination, participating in an investigation or filing a charge.

The guidance further states that business reasons, including customer or client preference, cost of labor or beliefs regarding the productivity of certain groups, do not excuse an employer’s decision to hire foreign workers over American workers. The EEOC national origin landing page was also updated to reflect the current EEOC’s focus on national origin discrimination against American workers by implementing portions of the technical guidance.

Although the EEOC guidance does not alter existing law (which has always prohibited employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their national origin), it provides insight into how the agency will evaluate claims of national origin discrimination and measures employers can take to avoid such claims. Given the EEOC’s stated focus on combating anti-American national origin discrimination, employers may consider reviewing and updating practices and policies to ensure compliance.

Religious Discrimination

Both the Trump administration and the EEOC have expressed a focus on combating religious discrimination, with a particular emphasis on combating antisemitism. On Jan. 29, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14188, which states that “it will be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.” The current EEOC has also noted the agency’s emphasis on enforcing Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination and harassment. In a statement on the EEOC’s webpage, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas stated that one of the agency’s priorities is “protecting workers from religious bias and harassment.” Similar to the executive branch, the EEOC has noted a particular focus on fighting antisemitism. For example, on March 5, 2025, the EEOC issued a statement that it would “hold accountable universities and colleges which have created a hostile-work environment for their Jewish employees.”

Although the EEOC has not issued any updated guidance regarding religious discrimination, harassment or accommodations in the workplace, it has signaled a focus on enforcing Title VII’s religious protections with a particular concentration on antisemitism. Therefore, employers should ensure they are in compliance with all of Title VII’s religious discrimination, harassment and accommodation requirements.

EEOC Quorum

On Jan. 28, 2025, the EEOC lost its quorum. Although the EEOC was still able to accept and process charges during the period in which it lacked a quorum, it was unable to vote on rulemaking, issue new policies or rescind guidance documents. On Oct. 7, 2025, the EEOC restored its quorum. In light of the recently restored quorum, employers can expect a significant increase in EEOC activity in 2026, including the issuance of formal rulemaking and guidance. The EEOC has already signaled the issues that it will focus on, which are discussed above. Some of the specific guidance employers may expect to see change in the next year include updates to the EEOC’s 2024 Enforcement Guidance to remove protections for sexual orientation and gender identity and changes to the PWFA’s final rule regarding abortion and other reproductive health issues.