Those forms where you’re asked to select your race or ethnic group can trigger existential questions whose practical purpose isn’t always obvious. Should I categorize myself as Latino, Hispanic, Hispanic-White, Native American, some combination of these, or just select “prefer not to answer” rather than box in my identity?
The Trump administration, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has proposed ending federal requirements for employers to file annual EEO demographic reports, including the EEO‑1 form, but those changes are not yet final. Since 1966, the EEOC has required private employers with 100 or more employees, and certain federal contractors with at least 50 employees, to submit an annual report (EEO-1) with aggregated data on the race, ethnicity, and sex of their workforce.
If an employee chooses to check “prefer not to answer,” the current regulation has a rather unusual rule: “visual observation.”
If an employee refuses to self-identify, the employer must first rely on existing employment records. If those are unavailable, as a last resort, the employer must use visual identification to complete the mandatory government report.
Is EEOC Demographic Reporting Worth It?
As with most debates, opinions are divided.
Many defend demographic data collection as an essential tool for detecting patterns of discrimination that would otherwise go unnoticed. Former EEOC officials from Democratic administrations and civil rights organizations argue that without this data, it becomes much harder to identify trends such as disproportionate layoffs of Black workers or gender pay gaps. In other words, the underlying evidence that supports class actions and systemic discrimination claims.
In addition, employment attorneys point out that this data can also serve as a defense tool: having demographic records can help companies prove that their hiring and promotion practices are not discriminatory if they are sued.
On the other hand, the current administration views these data collections as harmful. The proposal to eliminate them makes that clear, but it is not an isolated measure.
President Trump has already advanced other policies aimed at moving away from ethnic distinctions, arguing that so-called “inclusion practices” end up disadvantaging members of majority groups who would otherwise qualify for positions reserved for minorities.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has been critical of diversity and inclusion practices and has encouraged White men to file discrimination claims. She has also argued that these demographic reports “can promote racial stereotyping in the workplace and incentivize employers to engage in discrimination.”
Along these lines, the push against diversity policies goes beyond the workplace and beyond Lucas’ leadership. Shortly after beginning his second term, President Trump issued the executive order titled “Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which eliminates all programs, mandates, policies, preferences, or activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Back in 2023, the Supreme Court held that the use of race as a factor in college admissions was unconstitutional, a practice that had benefited minority applicants, particularly Black and Latino students.
More recently, in 2025, the Court redefined the standard for reverse discrimination claims, ruling in favor of a heterosexual plaintiff who alleged she had been passed over in favor of gay colleagues. The Court eliminated the stricter standard that had previously applied to majority-group plaintiffs, potentially making these claims easier to bring.
How Does This Affect Employers and Employees?
In day-to-day work life, most employees would likely no longer have to answer questions about their racial or ethnic identity from their employer. Business owners with more than 100 employees would no longer be required to report this data to the government.
Your resume would be evaluated under a framework that aims to be purely merit-based. There would be no implicit “points” or prioritization tied to corporate diversity goals (DEI) — such as diverse candidate slates, hiring quotas, or race- or gender-restricted mentorship programs — but you also would not be screened out before an interview based on a minority label. At least, that's the idea. Lawsuits have argued that AI tools using facially neutral eligibility criteria can be discriminatory, as one example.
At a practical level, without aggregated data showing who is who within a company, it becomes harder to determine whether pay gaps or representation disparities exist (for example, whether leadership roles are predominantly held by a single group).
In addition, programs aimed at minorities are expected to continue disappearing. Many multinational companies have maintained mentorship programs, internal scholarships, or career acceleration initiatives specifically designed for Hispanic or underrepresented groups. Without government requirements or incentives to report diversity metrics, many companies may reduce funding for these programs. In fact, many are already being phased out.
To be clear, the proposal is not to change existing federal law: discrimination based on race or national origin remains illegal in the United States under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, if you suspect discrimination, a company’s statistics can serve as evidence (for example: “30% of qualified applicants were Hispanic, but the company hired no Hispanics”). Without mandatory data collection, it may become more difficult to gather internal statistical evidence, meaning you may need to rely more heavily on other forms of proof. This includes emails, testimony, comparisons with other employees, and other indicators of unequal treatment. Gathering proof could become even more difficult when job performance is tied to black-box AI metrics, as has been the case in a lawsuit against Meta.
The change could mean a faster, more neutral job application process without labels — but at the cost of losing diversity metrics that have been used to push for equity within large corporations.
What Comes Next
The EEOC formally voted on Tuesday to advance the proposal to rescind demographic reporting requirements for employers, including the EEO‑1 form.
Next comes a 30-day public comment period following the rule’s publication in the Federal Register. This allows businesses, unions, civil rights organizations, and individuals to submit arguments for or against the proposal.
The EEOC has scheduled an official public hearing for August 11, 2026, to hear testimony on the proposal.
After reviewing the comments received, the EEOC will draft and vote on a final rule. If approved, the requirement to report race, ethnicity, and gender data would be formally eliminated at the federal level.
That said, even if the EEOC issues a final rule by late 2026, implementation could be delayed. Civil rights groups or state attorneys general may seek a federal court injunction to block the measure, arguing that eliminating the reporting requirement violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or other federal law.
