What Employers Need to Know About Recent Executive Orders from the Trump Administration

As President Trump began his second term in January 2025, a wave of executive orders swiftly signaled a dramatic shift in federal priorities—particularly in areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), pay transparency, gender identity policies, and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. For employers, these changes present new legal realities and strategic considerations for compliance and risk mitigation.

Here’s what you need to know.

Revocation of Prior Executive Orders: A Return to “Merit-Based” Principles

On Day One, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”, which revoked several Biden-era orders aimed at advancing racial and gender equity, pay transparency, and COVID-19 protections. Notably revoked:

• EO 13988: Combating discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
• EO 13985 and 14091: Advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities.
• EO 14069: Promoting pay equity and transparency.
• EO 14020: Creating the White House Gender Policy Council.
• EO 14099: Phasing out COVID-19 vaccination mandates.
• EO 14055: Protecting qualified workers under federal service contracts.

Implication: These revocations indicate a strong pivot from identity-based programs toward a framework centered on individual merit and “biological truth.” Agencies are expected to revise their policies accordingly, and this shift is likely to impact federal contractors and grant recipients first, with broader influence expected in the private sector.

DEI Programs Under Scrutiny: Ending EO 11246 Enforcement

Perhaps the most consequential move was the revocation of Executive Order 11246, a longstanding directive that required covered federal contractors and subcontractors to create affirmative action programs for and to comply with nondiscrimination requirements for women and minorities.

Following this revocation:

• The Department of Labor (DOL) directed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to immediately stop enforcing all obligations under EO 11246.
• Pending audits and investigations operating under EO11246 authority were closed.
• Reviews under Section 503 (disability) and VEVRAA (veterans) regulations were paused pending further guidance.

Implication for Employers: Federal contractors are no longer required to maintain affirmative action programs for women and minorities.

Defining “Illegal” DEI: A New Enforcement Priority

While the executive orders do not ban all DEI efforts, they emphasize eliminating “illegal DEI”—programs that allegedly violate Title VII or other civil rights laws by using race or gender preferences in hiring, promotion, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment.

The Trump Administration is encouraging:

• Investigations into public and private employer DEI programs.
• Legal challenges to DEI initiatives that could be interpreted as discriminatory.
• Limiting the use of demographic “goals” or preferences in hiring or career development.

Implication: Even private-sector DEI programs have come under scrutiny if they are perceived to give preferential treatment based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Employers should avoid language or practices that imply favoritism and instead frame initiatives around equal employment opportunity (EEO) for all.

EEOC Changes: No Quorum, New Priorities

President Trump removed two EEOC commissioners, leaving the agency without a quorum. However, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas is continuing agency work and has outlined a vision aligned with the president’s executive orders, including:

• Increased litigation and enforcement against race- and sex-conscious employment decisions.
• A focus on pregnancy discrimination, religious accommodation, and gender ideology.
• Continued charge investigations with new strategic emphasis.

Implication: The EEOC may not issue new regulations without a quorum, but it can still litigate and investigate. Employers should expect more EEOC-initiated actions targeting perceived reverse discrimination or unlawful DEI efforts.

Gender Identity: Narrowed Federal Definitions

A new executive order instructs federal agencies to recognize only two biological sexes: male and female. Though aimed at agencies and employees, this directive may influence:

• Federal contractors through agency policy changes.
• Restroom and pronoun policies in the workplace.

Employers should note that federal employment laws provide protection for gender identity as some state laws—some mandate gender identity protections, while others restrict them.

Implication: All employers should evaluate workplace gender policies, especially those related to restrooms, dress codes, and pronoun usage, to ensure alignment with both federal and state laws.

Disparate Impact Enforcement Slows Down

The administration has signaled an intent to limit enforcement of “disparate impact” discrimination theories—cases where policies are neutral on their face but have unequal effects on protected groups.

• Agencies like the EEOC and DOJ are expected to reduce reliance on disparate impact in investigations and litigation.
• The administration plans to issue technical assistance to help employers promote equal access without relying on race- or sex-based assumptions.

Implication: While the disparate impact doctrine remains legally valid (under Title VII), employers may see reduced federal enforcement but should be mindful private plaintiffs can or likely will bring these types of claims.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Even in a shifting legal landscape, equal employment opportunity remains the law. To stay compliant and reduce litigation risk, employers should:

1. Conduct a Privileged DEI Assessment: Objectively review DEI and EEO programs for legal risks, language issues, or inconsistent practices.
2. Audit Hiring and Promotion Practices: Ensure criteria are job-related and applied uniformly.
3. Review Internal and External Messaging: Avoid vague DEI language. Be specific about commitments to fairness and EEO.
4. Evaluate Training and ERG Activities: Confirm no preferences are granted based on race, sex, or other protected traits.
5. Eliminate Unnecessary Barriers: Reassess job qualifications, such as degree or lifting requirements, that may limit equal access.
6. Stay Informed on State Laws: Federal guidance may conflict with state-level protections—especially around gender identity.
7. Train HR and Leadership Teams: Reinforce nondiscrimination principles and legal boundaries of DEI initiatives.
8. Maintain Psychological Safety: Emphasize respect and inclusion for all, regardless of the evolving political context.

Implications for Employers’ Safety and HR Programs

Pre-Hire Physical Abilities Testing (PAT)

• What’s Changed?
  The EOs emphasize merit-based hiring and reduce the federal government's role in enforcing certain affirmative action or DEI-related frameworks.
• What That Means for PAT:
  PATs must be clearly job-related and consistent with business necessity under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII. While the federal emphasis on avoiding disparate impact enforcement is softening, discrimination laws still apply, and a poorly designed test could still lead to claims.
• Recommendation:
  Employers should ensure PATs are grounded in validated job analyses and periodically review them to remove unnecessary barriers (e.g., outdated lifting requirements) that might disproportionately exclude certain groups.

Job Analysis

• What’s Changed?
  There’s now greater scrutiny on the rationale for employment criteria. While EOs direct agencies to focus less on race- or sex-based goals, they simultaneously urge agencies to eliminate unjustified educational and physical requirements that may limit access.
• What That Means for Job Analysis:
  Employers should revisit job descriptions and qualification standards. If a task or requirement (e.g., lifting 50 lbs.) is no longer essential, it could be seen as creating a barrier to equal opportunity.
• Recommendation:
  Conduct regular, objective job analyses to ensure all physical or cognitive requirements are justified and reflect actual job duties.

Ergonomic Assessments

• What’s Changed?
  The EOs do not specifically reference ergonomics, but they do push agencies to focus on individual capability over group identity, and to eliminate unjustified barriers.
• What That Means for Ergonomics:
  Ergonomic programs remain a best practice for injury prevention and accommodation, especially under the ADA. However, they should be positioned as inclusive, safety-driven efforts rather than tied to identity-focused initiatives (e.g., only targeting “at-risk” groups).
• Recommendation:
  Continue ergonomic assessments as a universal design and injury prevention tool, and ensure they are backed by solid safety, productivity, and health data—not demographic assumptions.

Return to Work Programs

• What’s Changed?
  The removal of COVID-related executive orders and emphasis on biological sex distinctions could signal increased scrutiny of accommodations, especially those perceived as related to gender identity or flexible leave policies.
• What That Means for RTW Programs:
  Return-to-work efforts should continue but be grounded in ADA-compliant, individualized assessments and avoid blanket rules based on diagnosis, gender, or identity.
• Recommendation:
  Keep RTW programs focused on objective medical recovery standards and job demands. Document the interactive process and be cautious about applying policies that could be perceived as favoring one group over another.

Final Thoughts: Compliance + Cost Savings

While these EOs shift federal enforcement priorities, they do not eliminate employer risk under federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws. Employers should treat this as an opportunity to:

• Validate all employment requirements and programs.
• Focus on equal opportunity rooted in job-related criteria.
• Minimize legal risk while enhancing safety and productivity.

Employers should not panic—but they must act thoughtfully. A strategic review of DEI, EEO, and compliance efforts—guided by legal counsel—can help organizations adapt to the new landscape without abandoning their values or commitments to fairness.

While these shifting federal priorities may feel complex, one thing remains clear: employers that ground their programs in objective, job-related criteria not only maintain compliance—they also position themselves for measurable cost savings. Pre-hire physical abilities testing, ergonomic assessments, job analyses, and structured return-to-work programs help reduce workplace injuries, lower workers’ compensation claims, and improve employee retention. In other words, legally sound, well-designed safety and HR practices are not just risk management tools—they're smart business.