Nike, the global footwear and apparel giant, is facing federal scrutiny after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a subpoena enforcement action against the company on February 4, 2026. The EEOC is investigating claims of systemic, DEI-related intentional race discrimination against white employees, applicants, and participants in training programs.
The investigation stems from a January 11, 2024, complaint filed by America First Legal (AFL), a conservative organization founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller.
AFL alleged that Nike engaged in racial and sex discrimination through its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, including numerical targets for representation and exclusionary employee networks. This prompted EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas to file a commissioner's charge in May 2024, initiating the probe based on Nike's publicly stated DEI commitments.
The inquiry examines whether Nike's practices violated Title VII by discriminating in hiring, promotions, demotions, separations (including 2024 layoffs), internships, mentoring, leadership development, and career programs.
The EEOC seeks records dating back to 2018, including workforce racial/ethnic data, criteria for layoff selections, use of race/ethnicity in executive compensation, and details on 16 allegedly race-restricted programs.
Nike CEO Elliot Hill appears before the brand’s logo as the company responds to an EEOC probe into alleged discrimination against white employees.
Nike Responds to the Investigation
Nike described the subpoena enforcement action as "a surprising and unusual escalation" and emphasized its good-faith cooperation. In a statement, the company said it has "shared thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses to the EEOC’s inquiry" and is providing additional materials.
"We are committed to fair and lawful employment practices and follow all applicable laws, including those that prohibit discrimination," Nike stated. "We believe our programs and practices are consistent with those obligations and take these matters seriously. We will continue our attempt to cooperate with the EEOC and will respond to the petition."
Details of the EEOC Subpoena
The EEOC's action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:26-mc-00128), seeks to enforce a September 2025 subpoena after Nike did not fully comply with prior information requests dating back to 2024 and 2025. The agency alleges that Nike's partial responses have delayed the investigation into potential unlawful employment practices.
Court filings highlight concerns over race-based workforce quotas, layoff decisions, and DEI-related objectives, including Nike's publicly stated 2025 targets (e.g., 50% women in global corporate workforce, 45% in leadership, and 30% racial/ethnic minorities at director level and above in the U.S.).
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas stated: “When there are compelling indications, including corporate admissions in extensive public materials, that an employer’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-related programs may violate federal prohibitions against race discrimination or other forms of unlawful discrimination, the EEOC will take all necessary steps—including subpoena enforcement actions—to ensure the opportunity to fully and comprehensively investigate.
Title VII’s prohibition of race-based employment discrimination is colorblind and requires the EEOC to protect employees of all races from unlawful employment practices. Thanks to President Trump's commitment to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws, the EEOC has renewed its focus on evenhanded enforcement of Title VII.”
President Donald Trump addresses the media, reflecting the administration’s focus on alleged reverse discrimination and its impact on Nike’s EEOC probe.
Broader Context Under the Trump Administration
This case reflects a broader shift in federal enforcement priorities, with the EEOC under the Trump administration scrutinizing corporate DEI initiatives for potential reverse discrimination. Lucas has encouraged white men to file complaints and emphasized colorblind application of anti-discrimination laws.
Legal experts have critiqued the approach. Michael Foreman, director of the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic at Penn State Dickinson Law, described the Nike inquiry as part of "EEOC’s consistent pattern of basically being the bully pulpit for the Trump administration." He questioned the comparative lack of scrutiny on discrimination against minorities or based on national origin.
Similar probes have targeted other companies, such as Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, which has contested EEOC methods.
The Stakes for Nike
The investigation carries significant legal, financial, and reputational risks for Nike, a high-profile global brand. Confirmed violations could impact employee morale, consumer perception, and investor confidence. The outcome may influence corporate DEI strategies nationwide amid evolving enforcement interpretations.
Nike’s global headquarters seen from above as the company navigates an EEOC probe into claims of discrimination against white employees.
What This Means for Employees and Employers
For employees, the case underscores protections against all forms of workplace discrimination under Title VII, regardless of race. For employers, it highlights the need to align DEI programs with federal law amid shifting priorities.
Companies must balance inclusion goals with compliance, as political changes can alter enforcement focus. Nike's response and the investigation's resolution will likely shape future guidance on lawful diversity practices.
