Some would argue that Nike, the world’s largest sports brand, has a questionable track record in recent years: promoting transgender ideology (including support for medical interventions on youth) as well as resistance to severing ties with suppliers linked to Uyghur forced labor in China (a persecuted Muslim minority) — two of the latest examples. Now, adding to this list, the company is officially under investigation by the Trump administration for alleged anti-white discrimination.

The probe, spearheaded by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), zeroes in on Nike’s high-profile diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs — initiatives that are not only part of ongoing culture wars but a primary target of the second Trump administration. At the heart of the scrutiny are the company’s 2025 representation targets, such as achieving 50% women in its global workforce and 35% racial minorities in the U.S. These goals have come under fire for allegedly crossing into discriminatory territory.

The EEOC is reviewing claims that Nike has engaged in intentional race-based discrimination against white employees and applicants, penetrating every corner of the corporate ladder: from hiring decisions and promotions to mentoring opportunities, leadership development programs, internships, and even the process of selecting who gets laid off during cutbacks. To dig deeper, the EEOC has slapped Nike with a subpoena, demanding it provide detailed workforce data tied to these allegations. And this isn’t a recent flare-up, with reports indicating similar requests stretch all the way back to 2018.

A fresh wave of complaints poured in shortly after EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas made a video inviting white men to come forward and report any suspected race-based discrimination against them. These allegations then painted a sweeping picture of systemic concerns, accusing Nike of “a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white employees.” One such report came from America First Legal (AFL) in early 2024. The conservative advocacy group alleged that Nike committed “racial and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

As former AFL Vice President Gene Hamilton said at the time, “Organizations like Nike have openly and proudly displayed policies that appear to be facially discriminatory and illegal. It is crucial that the EEOC does what Congress ordered it to do and to hold Nike — and any brands that engage in this apparently illegal behavior — accountable.”

According to Lucas, as detailed in an EEOC press release, “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.”

Lucas highlighted “Title VII’s prohibition of race-based employment discrimination,” emphasizing that it “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.” Yet even with this explanation, a Nike spokesperson said the development came unexpectedly.

“This feels like a surprising and unusual escalation,” the spokesperson said. “We have shared thousands of pages of information and detailed written responses to the EEOC’s inquiry and are in the process of providing additional information.” Meanwhile, a deeper dive into Nike’s broader track record appears to only amplify the intrigue.

On the transgender front, for instance, the company has been a vocal advocate. It has partnered with high-profile, controversial figures like Dylan Mulvaney — the transgender-identifying man whose collaborations have sparked major boycotts and backlash. Nike has also come under fire for launching multiple campaigns related to LGBT ideology — including a recent ad featuring someone who identified as a non-binary furry. However, it’s Nike’s endorsement of medical interventions for minors, such as hormone treatments and irreversible surgeries, that has drawn the sharpest criticism.

Critics, including medical professionals and parental rights groups, have argued that these procedures carry significant risks, with a growing number of groups, individuals, and published reports expressing these same concerns. Earlier this week, the largest plastic surgery organization in the world released a position statement outlining the dangers and risks of minors undergoing gender transition surgeries. Related potential harms include lifelong health complications, pain, and major regret, especially from minors who were quickly pushed into surgeries after swift gender dysphoria diagnoses.

This pattern of controversy, however, isn’t isolated. Nike’s reluctance to disentangle from suppliers linked to Uyghur forced labor — despite widespread reports of exploitation in Chinese cotton fields and factories — has drawn bipartisan condemnation, highlighting a hypocrisy in a company that preaches human rights while profiting from alleged abuses. Now, layering on the anti-white discrimination claims, the narrative thickens: Is Nike’s pursuit of diversity inadvertently — or intentionally — creating new forms of exclusion? The allegations seem to suggest so.

As the investigation unfolds, one thing appears clear: Nike’s swoosh may symbolize “just do it,” but in the court of public opinion — and potentially federal court — the brand is now being called on with extra vigor to justify whether its actions are not merely controversial but illegal. Will this probe expose cracks in the DEI facade, or will Nike emerge unscathed, doubling down on what many see as a progressive playbook? Only time, and perhaps a mountain of subpoenaed documents and complaints, will tell.