EEOC alleges anti-white discrimination at Nike, seeks court enforcement of subpoena
A Nike logo is seen at the Nike flagship store, Dec. 20, 2019, in New York. (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The federal agency that investigates workplace discrimination is seeking court enforcement of a subpoena it has issued to Nike as it pursues allegations that the athletic apparel maker has been discriminating against its white employees in its corporate diversity policies.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed its motion this week in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, where Nike has a factory that produces its famous AIR footwear technology.
The agency’s charges against Nike date to 2024, when commission member, and current Trump-appointed chair, Andrea Lucas alleged that Nike had been engaging in a pattern of discriminatory practices, including “race-based workforce representation quotas,” and hiring, promotion, demotion and firing decisions that were a function of “disparate treatment against White employees, applicants, and training program participants.”
In its filing, the EEOC says the charges were not triggered by internal complaints from workers, but were “based on publicly available information regarding Nike,” including the company’s public pledges to have “30% representation of racial and ethnic minorities at Director level and above in the U.S.,” and 35% representation across its entire U.S. corporate workforce.
The EEOC said in the filing that it has gone to court because the company provided some, but not all, of the data the agency requested on the racial and ethnic makeup of its workforce following the issuance of a subpoena last September.
“Respondent NIKE’s failure to comply with the subpoena has delayed and hampered the EEOC’s investigation of alleged unlawful employment practices under Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the motion states.
In a statement to ABC News, a Nike spokesperson said that the EEOC’s move to seek court enforcement of the subpoena “feels like a surprising and unusual escalation.”
“We have had extensive, good-faith participation in an EEOC inquiry into our personnel practices, programs, and decisions and have had ongoing efforts to provide information and engage constructively with the agency,” the Nike statement 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.”
Nike’s statement further said it is “committed to fair and lawful employment practices and follow[s] all applicable laws, including those that prohibit discrimination,” adding, “we believe our programs and practices are consistent with those obligations and take these matters seriously. We will continue our attempt to cooperate with the EEOC and will respond to the petition.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, February 20, 2026. (Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A 10% global tariff took effect on Tuesday, marking the first duty enacted by President Donald Trump after a recent Supreme Court decision invalidated most of his levies.
Within hours of the high court’s ruling on Friday, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10% tariff on nearly all imports for up to 150 days. The directive called for enforcement of the duty to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Feb. 24.
Soon after signing the order, Trump vowed to hike the global tariff to 15%. As of Tuesday, however, the president had not issued an executive order formalizing that increase.
Stocks ticked higher Tuesday morning, recovering some of the losses suffered a day earlier in the first trading session since Trump announced the tariff increase.
Trump enacted the 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the White House to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, or disparities between a country’s total payments in transactions with other nations and its total earnings.
Under the measure, the president can also impose levies to “prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar.”
The Section 122 tariffs will result in price increases amounting to $800 in additional costs for an average U.S. household over the next 150 days, the Yale Budget Lab projected. In order to extend the across-the-board 15% tariff beyond that time window, Trump would need to secure Congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that Democrats would oppose an extension of Section 122 tariffs, which could deny Trump the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Senate filibuster.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump affirmed what he said was his authority to issue tariffs, saying he does not need to consult Congress before erecting new trade levies.
Trump also reiterated his commitment to his policy approach, warning other countries that they may face a “much higher Tariff, and worse.”
The high court ruled in their February 20 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) does not authorize Trump to impose levies, nullifying a major swathe of tariffs issued by the president on April 2 of last year, which he dubbed “Liberation Day,” and a host of other measures.
If the Supreme Court had opted to uphold tariffs issued under IEPPA, the nation’s effective tariff rate would have remained at 16%, the Yale Budget Lab said. Taking into account the Section 122 tariffs, the effective tariff rate now stands at 13.7%, the group said.
Ships are anchored along the shoreline of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, April 22, 2026 in Bandar Abbas, Iran. (Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Thousands of canceled flights in Europe over a spike in jet fuel prices. An energy emergency declaration in the Philippines. A two-week school holiday in Pakistan to conserve fuel used by commuters.
The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran triggered dramatic steps in a slew of countries bent on weathering one of the worst oil shocks in history, stoking concern by some about a possible global recession.
Economists disagree about whether the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz will ultimately drive the world’s economy into a downturn, in part because the duration of the waterway’s effective closure remains murky. The outcome holds implications for the livelihoods of billions of people and the performance of companies big and small across the globe.
Some analysts said they fear the oil shortage will soon become so dire that crude prices could rise sharply driving up costs for an array of goods and hammering shoppers. The fallout could squeeze businesses and shrink growth, they said.
Others proved more optimistic, pointing to a smaller rise in oil prices than some feared and a recent track record of economic resilience in the face of trade wars and other turmoil. A worldwide downturn, they said, would require a much more prolonged closure of the strait.
“The longer this drags on, the costlier it becomes,” Ryan Sweet, chief global economist at Oxford Economics, told ABC News.
Still, Sweet added: “Whether or not this will cause a global recession, it’s premature to say.”
The conflict, which began on Feb. 28, prompted Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global supply of oil and natural gas.
The vast majority of oil that passes through the strait is bound for Asian markets. But since oil prices are set on a global market, prices have climbed for just about everyone as buyers chase fewer barrels of crude.
On Tuesday, Trump extended a ceasefire with Iran, averting a resumption of wide hostilities, although the move left the strait under Iran’s effective control. The U.S., meanwhile, has mounted a blockade of Iranian ports in the strait, squeezing a key source of government funds derived from oil exports, while exacerbating the global petroleum shortage.
The Brent futures price, the benchmark index for global oil trading, registered at about $106 a barrel on Friday. That price stood about 50% higher than its pre-war level.
Higher oil and gasoline prices risk a pinch at the pump, as well as additional costs for just about every product delivered across the globe on trucks or ships that run on diesel fuel.
“Oil feeds into inflation, which reduces raw purchasing power — how much bang for their buck people have,” Sweet said. “That slows the economy.”
Still, oil prices remain below the highs reached after some previous economic shocks. In 2022, the price of Brent crude surged above $139 per barrel in March, just weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During the 2008 financial crisis, U.S. gasoline prices shot up as high as $147 a barrel.
Some economic forecasts issued in recent weeks projected that global economic growth could escape the crisis relatively unscathed, as long as the war reaches a resolution in short order and oil prices avoid a steeper climb.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) last month predicted that global gross domestic product (GDP) growth would “remain broadly stable” at 2.9% in 2026. That forecast matched projections issued by the OECD in December, before the war.
The OECD touted strong tech investment and lower-than-expected tariffs, citing “carry-over from robust outcomes in 2025.”
Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected that GDP growth would register at a solid pace of 3.1% in 2026, noting that the global economy had withstood “higher trade barriers and elevated uncertainty last year.”
The forecasts from the OECD and IMF worked under the assumption of a resolution to the conflict by the middle of this year, acknowledging the impact could worsen if it stretches on for longer.
Some economists, by contrast, consider the economic threat a more urgent risk.
Paul Krugman, an economics professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center and a former columnist at the New York Times, criticized the IMF projection on Substack on Monday, faulting the group for “seriously underestimating how badly the global economy could be hit.”
“In my view, a full-on global recession is more likely than not if the Strait remains closed for, say, another three months, which seems all too possible,” he said.
Rosier forecasts fail to adequately factor in the risk of a significant rise in oil prices over the near term, Krugman said, warning of widespread “demand destruction” as oil becomes increasingly scarce. Under such a scenario, a surge in oil prices would make it unaffordable for many buyers, forcing them to find alternatives or forgo energy use altogether.
Technical definitions vary about what constitutes a global recession, but the gist is a period of sluggish or negative economic growth. For the World Bank, a global recession amounts to a contraction in global per capita GDP; while the IMF considers GDP growth below 2% sufficient to warrant the label of a recession.
A six-month impasse in the strait could push global oil prices as high as $190 in August, Oxford Economics said in a blog post last month. That price shock would send global inflation to 7.7%, near its peak in 2022, the independent economic advisory firm said.
“But unlike 2022, when the global economy kept growing through the price shock, the severity of this disruption tips the world into outright contraction,” Oxford Economics added.
In addition to its optimistic baseline projection, the IMF issued a downbeat prediction in the event of a more severe disruption of oil markets that stretches into next year. Under those circumstances, the global economy “would come close to experiencing a recession,” the IMF said, noting that it defines a global recession as annual GDP growth below 2%.
Growth below 2% has happened four times since 1980, the group said.
Across the board, economists acknowledged a high degree of uncertainty as the Iran war unfolds. Plus, some said, the negative effects will be unevenly distributed, hitting harder in low-income countries as well as those who depend on oil that passes through the strait.
While the full extent of economic wreckage remains unknown, the prospect of an extended global impact is all but certain, Sweet said.
“This will take a long time to get back up to resembling anything close to normal,” he added.
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks closed higher on Monday, recovering from sharp losses earlier in the day as markets whipsawed in response to developments in the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
The dramatic reversal on Wall Street came after U.S. oil prices turned lower on Monday afternoon. Crude prices settled at about $85 per barrel, unwinding a surge hours earlier that had reached as high as nearly $120 a barrel.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 230 points, or 0.4%, while the S&P 500 jumped 0.8%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq increased 1.3%.
The Dow had fallen as much as 750 points on Monday morning, before reversing those losses in the afternoon.
Oil prices fell into the red and stocks raced into the green after comments made by President Donald Trump to a CBS reporter, who posted on X that the president had said “the war is very complete, pretty much.”
Crude markets began to calm on Monday morning amid a meeting of the Group of Seven (G7) finance ministers about a possible coordinated release from their respective strategic petroleum reserves.
The G7 announced on Monday its decision to forego a release of reserve oil at this time, but traders appeared to view the group as willing to take such action.
Still, indexes fell worldwide on Monday as the jump in oil prices rippled through global markets. Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 index plunged 5.2%, while pan-European STOXX 600 index slipped 0.6%.
U.S. crude oil prices hovered at about $85 per barrel on Monday afternoon, which marked a roughly 6% decline from a day earlier. Since a month ago, however, oil prices have soared 34%.
In a social media post on Sunday night, President Donald Trump downplayed the rise in oil prices.
“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” Trump said.
Soon after the war with Iran began on Feb. 28, U.S.-Israeli forces killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. His son Mojtaba Khamenei was chosen on Sunday to succeed him.
