Mitigate Risk. Lead with Clarity.

 EEOC Strategic Plan 

On July 1, 2026, the EEOC released its proposed Fiscal Years 2026–2030 Strategic Plan for public comment, with comments due by July 19, 2026. Given the significance of the proposed changes, we have prepared a separate analysis comparing the current FY 2022–2026 Strategic Plan with the proposed FY 2026–2030 Strategic Plan. The analysis examines changes to the agency's strategic goals, performance measures, and enforcement priorities, and what they may mean for employers and workplace civil rights enforcement.

Download the EEOC Strategic Plan Analysis here.

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT  

Federal Court Expands Injunction Blocking DEI and Gender Order Conditions on Municipal Grants 

• Cities win more relief from Trump’s DEI grant restrictions  

• City of Seattle v. Trump et al, No. 2:2025cv01435 - Document 85 (W.D. Wash. 2026) :: Justia

OVERVIEW

On June 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington expanded a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing two executive orders as conditions on certain federal grants awarded to cities and counties. The ruling extends an October 2025 injunction that previously applied only to the City of Seattle and now covers Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio; Portland, Oregon; Durham, North Carolina; Shoreline, Washington; and Allegheny, Hennepin, Prince George's, and Ramsey counties.

The challenged grant conditions implement Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity, and Executive Order 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The plaintiffs allege the conditions place more than $2 billion in federal grants supporting transportation, housing, disaster preparedness, public safety, healthcare, nutrition, and other public services at risk.

In expanding the preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their challenge to the grant conditions and that they had demonstrated irreparable harm absent preliminary relief. The litigation will now proceed while the injunction remains in effect.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The court based its ruling on the plaintiffs' claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and did not reach the constitutional claims. Judge Rothstein concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the agencies exceeded their statutory authority by imposing the challenged grant conditions and had not provided a reasoned explanation connecting those conditions to the purposes Congress established for the affected grant programs.

The court distinguished this case from the Fourth Circuit's February 2026 decision in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. The Fourth Circuit considered a facial constitutional challenge to the executive orders themselves, while this case challenges the agencies' implementation of Executive Orders 14173 and 14168 through specific grant conditions under the APA.

The preliminary injunction does not invalidate Executive Orders 14173 or 14168. Instead, it temporarily prohibits the federal government from enforcing the challenged grant conditions against the plaintiffs covered by the injunction while the litigation proceeds.

BRIDGE POV

This decision reinforces an important principle: executive orders alone do not expand an agency's statutory authority. As litigation continues over the scope of federal grant conditions, organizations should distinguish between policy directives, agency implementation, and binding legal requirements.

The priority remains disciplined governance. Organizations should continue to comply with applicable law while carefully evaluating new funding conditions, recognizing that agency actions implementing executive orders may be subject to judicial review. In periods of legal uncertainty, decisions should be grounded in statutory obligations, sound governance, and informed legal counsel rather than assumptions about shifting enforcement priorities.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1.  Review Federal Grant Obligations: Identify grants that incorporate certifications or conditions related to Executive Orders 14173 or 14168, and understand how those requirements apply to your organization based on the funding agency and jurisdiction.
   
   
2. Align Grant Compliance with Legal Review: Establish a coordinated review process involving legal, compliance, finance, and program leaders before accepting or certifying new federal grant conditions, particularly where litigation is ongoing.
   
   
3. Monitor Litigation Affecting Funding Requirements: Continue to track court decisions involving federal grant conditions and agency implementation. As litigation progresses, assess whether changes in judicial rulings affect existing obligations or future funding opportunities.

See also: Federal Court Pauses Significant Portion of Trump's Executive Orders (Issue 1); 'Illegal' DEI Remains Undefined as Cities Challenge Emergency-Funding Conditions (Issue 39); Fourth Circuit Declines Facial Challenge to Anti-DEI Orders, Keeps Door Open for Future Legal Action (Issue 52); First Amendment Likely Bars DEI Grant Terminations (Issue 66); OMB Proposes Rule Barring Federal Grants for DEI Activities (Issue 67)

EEOC Publishes 2026 Regulatory Agenda 

• https://www.reginfo.gov

On July 6, 2026, the EEOC published its 2026 Regulatory Agenda, identifying the Commission's planned rulemaking priorities. The agenda includes proposed revisions to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations, including reconsideration of provisions implementing the Act that have been the subject of ongoing litigation, such as the regulation's treatment of abortion-related accommodations. It also proposes rescinding the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, a longstanding framework used by employers to evaluate whether employment tests and other selection procedures have an unlawful disparate impact under Title VII.

The agenda also confirms the Commission's intent to continue its proposed rescission of federal EEO reporting requirements, including the EEO-1, EEO-3, EEO-4, and EEO-5 reports, which have historically provided workforce demographic data used in the agency's enforcement and investigative activities. In addition, the Commission proposes rescinding guidance addressing sex discrimination and national origin discrimination, which explains the agency's interpretation of employers' obligations under Title VII and promotes voluntary compliance.

The Regulatory Agenda identifies the Commission's planned rulemaking priorities but does not change existing law or regulations. Each proposal must proceed through the federal notice-and-comment rulemaking process before any changes become effective. 

While the agenda provides insight into the Commission's regulatory priorities, employers remain responsible for complying with applicable federal, state, and local employment laws and protecting employees' rights under those laws. Changes to agency guidance or enforcement priorities do not eliminate an organization's legal obligations or exposure to litigation.

See also: Andrea Lucas Appointed Acting Commissioner of the EEOC (Issue 2); EEOC 120-Day Report Signals Significant Shift in Enforcement Priorities (Issue 14); EEOC Rescinds Voting Procedures and Workplace Harassment Guidance (Issue 48); EEOC Moves to Replace Enforcement Plan Protecting Vulnerable Workers (Issue 67); EEOC Replaces Strategic Enforcement Plan with New National Enforcement Plan (Issue 68)

Fourth Circuit Confirms Trump Administration Wrongfully Fired Intelligence Officials Who Worked in DEIA Roles

• US appeals court prevents firing of 19 intelligence officers assigned to DEI programs 

• Court orders Trump administration to rehire fired intelligence officers

• Bloomberg Law

On July 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction requiring the Trump administration to reinstate 19 career intelligence officers who were terminated after serving in positions associated with diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). The court noted that the agencies did not allege the officers had engaged in misconduct or had performance deficiencies. Instead, the record showed the terminations were carried out to implement Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, and related directives.

The Fourth Circuit found the officers were likely to succeed on their claims that the agencies failed to provide the procedural protections required under applicable government regulations, including the opportunity to seek reassignment and pursue internal appeals before terminating their employment. 

The court also agreed that the potential loss of constitutional rights and the risk of irreparable reputational harm supported maintaining the preliminary injunction while the litigation proceeds.

See also: Federal Court Pauses Significant Portion of Trump's Executive Orders (Issue 1); Fourth Circuit Declines Facial Challenge to Anti-DEI Orders, Keeps Door Open for Future Legal Action (Issue 52); Federal Workers in DEI-Related Roles Sue Trump Administration Over Mass Terminations (Issue 41); Class-Action Lawsuit Alleges First Amendment Violations in Federal DEI Terminations (Issue 46)

D.C. Judge Blocks USDA Grant Terminations Tied to DEI Policies

• URBAN SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTORS NETWORK et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al, No. 1:2025cv01775 - Document 81 (D.D.C. 2026) 

• Judge Restores $127M in USDA Grants to Black Farmers

On June 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction blocking the USDA from terminating grants awarded through the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILCAP), which funds projects designed to improve land, capital, and market access for underserved farmers, ranchers, and landowners.

The court found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the USDA exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court noted that the Department terminated 49 of 50 grants under the program using substantially similar termination letters that cited DEI-related concerns and characterized the grants as wasteful spending. The court also found that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm based on the loss of funding, disruption of programs, and potential reputational harm while the litigation proceeds.

The ruling permits 24 additional organizations to join an earlier lawsuit challenging similar USDA grant terminations and expands the preliminary injunction previously issued in that case.

See also: USDA Keyword Purge Targets "Diversity" and "Climate" Grants (Issue 39); Depositions Reveal AI-Driven Review Used to Terminate Federal DEI Grants (Issue 56); States Sue USDA Over DEI Funding Conditions (Issue 57); USDA Terminates Tribal Agriculture Grants Under $300M Program (Issue 59); Court Strikes Down DOGE Humanities Grant Cuts (Issue 66); USDA Fraud Claims Disputed as Tribal and Farm Groups Join Land Access Grant Lawsuit (Issue 67)