Nike is facing a federal investigation over claims that its diversity and inclusion efforts may have discriminated against White employees and job candidates. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently took legal steps to force Nike to hand over information as part of a wider probe into potential race discrimination.
The EEOC has asked a federal court in Missouri to enforce a subpoena after Nike did not fully comply with requests for documents. The agency is looking into whether Nike’s diversity programs, including its goals for 2025, unfairly treated White workers in areas like hiring, promotions, layoffs, and access to training and leadership programs.
This case is one of the first major actions under the current administration, which has placed a strong focus on examining diversity initiatives in the workplace, especially where White employees believe they have faced unfair treatment. In late 2025, the EEOC even encouraged White men who felt discriminated against to come forward.
According to EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency is committed to enforcing race discrimination laws fairly for people of all races. She pointed out that under President Trump, the commission renewed efforts to apply Title VII of the Civil Rights Act evenly across the board.
The subpoena demands records back to 2018. The EEOC wants to see how Nike decided on layoffs, how it collects and uses race and ethnicity data, and details on 16 programs that allegedly offered mentoring and career development opportunities limited by race. When Nike didn’t provide all the information voluntarily, the EEOC took the fight to court in the Eastern District of Missouri, in a case officially titled EEOC v. NIKE, Inc.
So far, Nike has not made any public comments about the enforcement action.
This investigation fits into a broader push by Trump-era policies to challenge and limit corporate diversity programs that consider race or gender. In January 2025, an executive order ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and encouraged agencies to act against diversity efforts considered discriminatory.
The Department of Justice has also launched a “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative” to go after organizations that receive federal money but run DEI programs thought to break civil rights laws.
On the state level, Missouri’s attorney general sued Starbucks last year over similar issues, accusing the coffee chain of discriminating by tying pay to diversity goals and offering programs that excluded White men.
Together, these moves show a new phase in how regulators and politicians are questioning diversity efforts. They are not just defending under-represented groups but also paying attention to claims from White employees who say they are being left out. This will likely shape how companies design diversity and inclusion programs in the future.