Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

When Bureaucracy Fails Victims: EEOC, Political Will, and the Trump Administration

 by Nicole Colaianni 

“Sexual assault allegations seem to be a badge of honor in Trump’s America” proclaimed journalist Carter Sherman  in an article published by The Guardian on March 30, 2025. This statement reflects a growing concern among commentators and news outlets regarding President Trump’s recent appointments to high-ranking government positions—many of whom, most notably Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth and Secretary of the Department for Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have faced credible accusations of sexual assault. President Trump himself was found liable for sexual assault in a civil case in May of 2023 (NBC News 2023). Within the Trump administration, allegations of violence against women—whether in the form of domestic abuse or workplace sexual harassment— seem to not only be overlooked but increasingly appear to be tolerated, even rewarded (NBC News 2024; NPR 2024; CBS 2024). Eight years after the global emergence of the #MeToo movement, such appointments are increasingly being interpreted as acts of political retaliation against the movement itself (The Cut 2024; MSNBC 2024), prompting the unsettling query:” Is #MeToo History?” (USA Today 2025).#

Figure 1: President Biden Signing the Speak Out Act 2022

Among the most significant legal victories achieved in the wake of the #MeToo movement were two landmark legislative changes signed into law by President Biden in 2021 and 2022: The Speak Out Act declared Non-Disclosure Agreements reached after 2022 – if regarding sexual harassment and sexual violence – would no longer be upheld by the judiciary. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act ended the practice of mandatory arbitration in cases involving sexual violence or harassment. These reforms marked a turning point: whereas in 2017, over half (55%) of American non-unionized employees in the private sector were bound by mandatory arbitration and unable to bring a claim against their employers in open court (Colvin, 2017: p. 1), the legal changes in 2021 ensured that victims of sexual harassment had the right to bring their claims before a public court. By restoring jurisdiction to federal judges, these changes significantly increased the potential for justice and transparency.

Figure 2: President Trump signs a series of executive orders January 2025

Now, however, President Trump’s cabinet picks and perhaps more significantly his battery of executive orders targeting policies regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) both within the public and private sector have spurned worries that any progress initiated by the #MeToo movement may be lost. Executive Order 14173 disallows federal contractors from offering or engaging in DEI programs and affirmative action. Executive Order 14151  aims to “end radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing,” and Executive Order 14168 defines “sex” as an individual’s “immutable biological classification as either male or female.” These orders significantly change the federal interpretation of discrimination regarding the race, gender, and sexual orientation. Interestingly, however, none of these orders directly address the issue of sexual harassment. Despite the policy on sexual harassment not changing, I will argue in this article that the lack of political will and changed enforcement priorities significantly affect victims’ options, even when laws and policies remain unchanged. In order to illustrate this point, I will turn to a historical example: I will highlight how the Reagan-administration reversed much of Carter’s changes regarding sexual harassment without ever changing the law or even official federal policy.

Figure 3: Sexual Harassment and Gavel by Nick Youngson

In the United States, the term sexual harassment was never defined by Congress. Instead, feminists argued that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination in the workplace and should thereby be covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1980 issued guidelines on sexual harassment defining the behavior as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature, […] when it is so pervasive or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision” (EEOC, 45 Federal Register 74676, 1980). This was the first time that the federal government defined the issue of sexual harassment. While the EEOC, as part of the executive branch, had and has no judicial authority and the guidelines were initially not binding, throughout the decades various Supreme Court decisions have confirmed the EEOC interpretation, which was first put forward by feminists in the late 1970s (Meritor v. Vinson; Burlington v. Ellerth, 1998; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998).

Since first issuing the guidelines in 1980 the EEOC has not altered them. However, history has demonstrated that without the political will to enforce it, a policy can become utterly meaningless. Let me illustrate this with the differing approaches taken by two Chairs of the EEOC: The Carter appointee Eleanor Holmes Norton implemented the guidelines and presents an example of unwavering commitment to their enforcement. In contrast, Holmes’ direct successor the Reagan appointee Clarence Thomas was directed by the President to weaken the guidelines and to reflect in the agency the sharp conservative turn of the administration. In the end, Thomas led the EEOC down a much more conservative path, while at the same time failing to revised the official EEOC guidelines. The contrast of these historical examples nicely illustrates the difference of an administrations’ actions and results despite officially adhering to the same policy.

Figure 4: Eleanor Holmes Norton, EEOC Commissioner 1977-1981

From 1977 to 1981, under the leadership of Eleanor Holmes Norton, the EEOC made a landmark commitment to addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. During her tenure, the agency released its first official guidelines on sexual harassment and took decisive action to reduce what The Washington Post referred to as its “scandalous backlog” of discrimination cases (1976: A12), cutting it by nearly half within two years (Baker 2008: 116). In 1980, Norton launched the “Rapid Charge Processing” system—a streamlined approach to handling complaints that significantly improved efficiency. Feminist organizations hailed the reform as a “major accomplishment,” as it reduced the average processing time from two years to just six months (Women Employed Institute 1982: 5). Norton’s tenure demonstrated that strong political leadership can be instrumental in transforming bureaucratic institutions into effective advocates for victims of workplace harassment (Zippel 2006: 52, 59; Dobbin 2009: 15, 80).

 

Figure 5: President Ronald Reagan Giving the Inaugural Address from the United States Capitol

President Reagan’s inauguration in 1981 marked a significant conservative shift in American politics (Critchlow 2003: 96). On the issue of equal opportunity, Reagan famously asserted: “We must not allow the noble concept of equal opportunity to be distorted into federal guidelines or quotas which require race, ethnicity, or sex—rather than ability and qualifications—to be the principal factor in hiring or education” (quoted in Graham 2003: 286). By emphasizing individual merit and potential, Reagan directly challenged feminist perspectives and largely dismissed structural inequalities as relevant to achieving success (Fernandez 2015: 188). Moreover, he regarded state intervention in the private sector as an improper use of public resources (McAllister 2003: 54).

In 1982, the Taskforce on Regulatory Relief, led by Vice President George H. W. Bush, sought to weaken the EEOC’s guidelines on sexual harassment. The administration criticized the guidelines for relying heavily on individual perception and argued that they placed an undue burden on employers (Pasztor 1981: 5; Labor Notes 1981: 136). However, a coordinated letter-writing campaign spearheaded by the Working Women’s Institute in partnership with Women Employed (WE) helped rally significant public support for the guidelines (Working Women’s Institute 1981; Sauvigné 1981: 2; Reed 1981; Flowers 1981). By March 1983, this widespread backing, alongside repeated affirmations of the guidelines by federal courts, compelled the Bush administration to abandon efforts to modify them (Berry 1983). As a result, the EEOC’s official policies and complaint procedures on sexual harassment remained fully intact.

Nevertheless, under the Reagan administration, the EEOC became significantly less effective in addressing sexual harassment (Women Employed, “Gender Gap” 1982: 1). The agency faced substantial budget cuts, with its funding reduced by nearly twenty percent in the 1982 fiscal year (Women Employed, “Enforcement” 1982: 9; “Budget Cuts” 1982: 4). Senator Edward Kennedy suggested that this funding reduction was directly linked to the administration’s opposition to the anti-sexual harassment guidelines. His assertion is supported by the fact that the EEOC’s Office of Policy Implementation—the unit responsible for drafting these guidelines—was disproportionately affected by the budget restrictions (Baker 2008: 136–37, 140).

Figure 6: President Reagan and EEOC Chair Clarence Thomas, 1986

Personnel changes also had a profound impact on the EEOC’s approach to sexual harassment cases (Women Employed, “Commissioners” 1982: 5). Not only did the agency experience a reduction in staff, but many employees with backgrounds in civil rights and feminist activism—largely appointed during the Carter administration—departed. They were replaced by individuals who, as historian Carrie N. Baker notes, “lacked a commitment to equal employment opportunity” (2008: 138). The most significant leadership change occurred in 1981 with the replacement of Eleanor Holmes Norton by Clarence Thomas. Thomas, who led the EEOC through the remainder of the decade, had a history of opposing affirmative action and would later become a controversial figure during his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings due to sexual harassment allegations.

Through financial restrictions and strategic personnel changes, the Reagan administration effectively shifted the EEOC’s approach to sexual harassment without formally altering its policies. By the end of 1982, the Commission’s backlog of sexual harassment cases had doubled, partly due to the erosion of Norton’s Rapid Charge Processing System. Furthermore, the percentage of complaints dismissed as having “no cause” rose from 29% in 1980–81 to 35% in 1982. Training programs and public awareness efforts were significantly curtailed, and the number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC on behalf of complainants dropped by 74% (Women Employed, “Enforcement” 1982; Baker 2008: 138). As a result, the EEOC no longer functioned as an ally to victims of workplace harassment.

While President Ronald Reagan is often remembered for using socially conservative rhetoric to appeal to the Christian Right, his political focus largely centered on economic issues. He was a vocal critic of affirmative action and what would today be termed DEI policies; however, Reagan’s opposition was comparatively restrained when measured against the aggressive dismantling efforts seen under President Trump. While sufficient data has yet to be collected, it is reasonable to assume that the EEOC under Trump is even less likely to serve as an ally to victims of sexual harassment than it was during the Reagan era four decades ago.

Contrary to the Reagan administration, the Trump administration has not even attempted to change the 1980 EEOC guidelines regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. In fact, the EEOC under President Trump has been left with three open seats, leaving the Commission without a quorum and thereby rendering it “unable to issue new regulations or guidance, or to amend or revoke those established under the previous administration” (EEOC, 2025). Instead of changing the official policy, the Trump administration has done exactly what Reagan did four decades before him: Changed enforcement priorities, cut the agencies budget, and replaced the agencies leadership.

Now, the reader might rightly ask: If the EEOC has no judicial authority, and the law on sexual harassment remains unchanged, why is the involvement of the agency so important to victims of harassment? With mandatory arbitration limited, can employees not simply seek legal action and bypass the agency? The short answer is yes. Sexual harassment is legally classified as a violation of the Civil Rights Act and therefore is a matter any employee may address in federal civil courts.

The longer answer is more complicated. Even if one seeks to bring legal action without the EEOC, one cannot circumvent the agency fully. In order to be heard by a court one needs to acquire a “right to sue” letter from the agency. Thus, filing a complaint with the agency remains a necessary first step. If the agency does not proceed with an investigation due to the backlog of cases, it is required to issue such a letter within 180 days (Derek Smith Law Group, 2025). The agency can also require conciliation efforts, such as mediation (Foote 2021: 238). However, the agency cannot prevent access to the courts after the 180-day mark.

The much bigger problem is of a practical rather than legal nature. Pursuing a case in court is expensive. With over 60 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck (Becker 2023; Dickler 2023), many victims cannot afford legal assistance. While it is legally possible to represent oneself in a civil proceeding, according to Berrey et al., the roughly 23 percent of plaintiffs who pursue litigation without representation experience far worse outcomes than those who hired a lawyer (2017: 42.). When well-funded and motivated the EEOC was able to bring lawsuits on behalf of complainants, assuming financial risk. As illustrated this was common during the Carter administration. There was also a significant uptake of cases brought to court on behalf of victims of sexual harassment during the Biden administration after the passage of the Speak Out Act. With the EEOC’s priorities again shifting under Trump, working-class women without resources cannot rely on the agency to seek justice and are de facto excluded from the legal system, leaving them with little leverage in workplace complaints.

Given the increasing political pressure on corporations—particularly federal contractors—to revise or eliminate their DEI programs, one might reasonably question whether internal sexual harassment policies will also be affected. Despite shifts in federal rhetoric, legal experts and management consultants are advising companies not to alter these policies, emphasizing that although administrative direction may change, the legal framework remains intact (e.g. Warran et al. 2025; Hoey et al. 2025; Warner 2025). As I have argued elsewhere, the private sector has long reframed sexual harassment not as an issue of discrimination or violence, but as a disruption to productivity and professionalism. Moreover, it is often seen as an individualized problem, disconnected from broader structures of inequality (Colaianni, 2021; Colaianni, forthcoming 2026). This suggests that even companies abandoning DEI initiatives have little incentive to dismantle sexual harassment policies.

However, enforcement remains critical. While many companies maintain formal sexual harassment policies, enforcement typically occurs internally and is often inconsistent (Schultz 2003: 2107). Employers are usually motivated not by justice, but by the desire to resolve complaints quickly to avoid scrutiny (Zippel 2006: 186: Colaianni, 2026). Despite the EEOC’s limited capacity, even a threat of EEOC involvement has historically pressured employers into taking allegations seriously.

I am increasingly concerned that under the Trump administration, even that pressure will disappear. Employers across the country are aware of the agency’s shifting priorities and the diminished likelihood of meaningful enforcement. While women with financial resources or access to legal support may still be able to credibly threaten litigation, such leverage is largely unavailable to minimum-wage workers and others in precarious positions. In the absence of robust oversight, companies will prioritize financial and reputational interests over employee welfare. Decisions regarding sexual harassment will be based not on justice but on cost and image management—leaving the most vulnerable workers unprotected once again.


About the Author

Nicole Colaianni is a research associate at the Curt Engelhorn Chair in American History at Heidelberg University. She studied English and History with a focus on education and American Studies in Heidelberg. From October 2020 to September 2023 she was a doctoral candidate and research associate at the DFG-graduate group “Authority and Trust” at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies. Her dissertation on sexual harassment policies in the US-private sector will be published with De Gruyter in early 2026.

Contact: nicole.colaianni@zegk.uni-heidelberg.de


 Works Cited:

Anonymous: “Some Trump Cabinet Picks Are Accused of Sexual Misconduct. What’s It Mean for #MeToo?”, in: NPR (November 21st, 2024).

Anonymous: “Stockman says Dealing with Sexual Harassment is ‚Burdensome‘ – for Employers”, in: Labor Notes (September 29th, 1981), p. 136.

Anonymous: “The Mess at EEOC”, in: The Washington Post (April 28th, 1976), p. A12.

Baker, Carrie N.: The Women’s Movement Against Sexual Harassment, New York 2008.

Bassett, Laura: “Trump’s Cabinet Picks Are Revenge for Me Too”, in: The Cut (November 21st, 2024).

Becker, Joshua: “61% of Americans Live Paycheck-to-Paycheck: Here’s the Simple Solution We’re Overlooking”, in: Forbes (August 18th, 2023).

Berrey, Ellen et al.: “Workers Wronged”, in: American Bar Association Journal 103/11 (November 2017), p. 36-45.

Berry, Phyllis: Letter from EEOC acting director Phyllis Berry to Senator Bill Bradley, March 25th, 1983, Barnard College Archives, Research on Women Records, Box 95, Folder Publications of the American Federation of State, Country and Municipal Employees.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).

Carlson, Gretchen and Julie Roginsky: “Trump Wants to Stack His Cabinet with Men Like Hegseth. Is #MeToo History? Donald Trump Has Inadvertently Pushed Our Culture to the Point Where It Might Finally Change for Good. We’ll Make Sure of It”, in: USA Today (no date 2024/2025).

Colaianni, Nicole: Bad for Business. Sexual Harassment in the American Workplace, Berlin 2026 (forthcoming).

Colaianni, Nicole: “Breaking the Silence – #MeToo and the Reclaiming of the Feminist Framing of Sexual Harassment”, in: HCA Graduate Blog (December 15th, 2021).

Colvin, Alexander J.S.: “The Growing Use of Mandatory Arbitration. Access to the Courts is Now Barred for More Than 60 Million American Workers”, in: Economic Policy Institute (September 2017).

Critchlow, Donald T.: “Mobilizing Women. The ‘Social’ Issue”, in: The Reagan Presidency. Pragmatic Conservatism and its Legacies, ed. by W. Elliot Brownlee and Hugh Davis Graham, Lawrence, KS 2003, pp. 293-326.

Derek Smith Law Group: “What Happens After You Receive an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue?”, no date.

Dickler, Jessica: “60% of Americans Are Still Living Paycheck to Paycheck as Inflation Hits Workers’ Wages”, in: CNBC (September 27th, 2023).

Dobbin, Frank: Inventing Equal Opportunity, Princeton, NJ et al. 2009.

EEOC: The State of the EEOC. Frequently Asked Questions, 2025.

EEOC: Guidelines on Sexual Harassment, 45 Federal Register 74676, November 10th, 1980.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

Farhi, Arden and Major Garrett: “4 Trump Administration Picks Have Sexual Misconduct Allegations in Their Past”, in: CBS News (updated November 20th, 2024).

Fernandez, Lilia: “Ronald Reagan, Race, Civil Rights, and Immigration”, in: A Companion to Ronald Reagan (Wiley Blackwell Companions to History), ed. by Andrew L. Johns, Chichester et al. 2015, pp. 185-203.

Flowers, Wanda: Letter to David Stockman Regarding Possible Weakening of EEOC Guidelines, October 7th, 1981, Barnard College Archive, Research on Women Records, Box 95, Folder Publications of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Foote, William E. and Jane Goodman-Delahunty: Understanding Sexual Harassment. Evidence-Based Forensic Practice, Washington DC 2021.

Graham, Hugh Davis: “Civil Rights Policy”, in: The Reagan Presidency. Pragmatic Conservatism and its Legacies, ed. by W. Elliot Brownlee and Hugh Davis Graham, Lawrence, KS 2003, pp. 283-291.

Hoey, Barbara et al.: “The Trump Transformation – Major Shifts in EEOC and Employment Law”, in: Kelley Drye (January 23rd, 2025).

Kamisar, Ben: “Three of Trump’s Cabinet Selections Have Faced Allegations of Sexual Misconduct. Matt Gaety, Pete Hegeseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Face Questions about Their Personal Actions As Well As Their Professional Qualifications Ahead of the Senate Confirmation Process”, in: NBC News (November 21st, 2024).

McAllister, Ted V.: “Reagan and the Transformation of American Conservatism”, in: The Reagan Presidency. Pragmatic Conservatism and its Legacies, ed. by W. Elliot Brownlee and Hugh Davis Graham, Lawrence, KS 2003, pp. 40-60.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

Mohyeldin, Ayman and Andrew Kenlon: “Trump’s Cabinet Selection Is a Revenge Mission Against #MeToo. Many of the President-Elect’s Picks for Top Government Jobs Are Facing Accusations of Sexual Misconduct”, in: MSNBC (November 30th, 2024).

Pasztor, Andy: “Dozens of U.S. Regulations are Targeted for Review, Probable Easing, Bush Says”, in: The Wall Street Journal (August 13th, 1981), p. 5.

Reed, Carolyn and Lynn Campbell: Letter to David Stockman Regarding Office Management and the Budget, September 21st, 1981, Barnard College Archive, Research on Women Records, Box 95, Folder Publications of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Reiss, Adam and Dareh Gregorian: “Trump Found Liable for Sexually Abusing and Defaming E. Jean Carroll in Vicil Trial and Is Ordered to Pay $5 Million. Carroll Sued the Former President, Accusing Him of Battery Over an Alleged Rape in the 1990s and of Defamation for Calling her Account a ‘Hoax,’” in: NBC News (May 9th, 2023).

Sauvigné, Karen: Letter to Vice President Bush from Karen Sauvigné (WWI), August 19th, 1981, p. 2.

Schultz, Vicki: “The Sanitized Workplace”, in: The Yale Law Journal 112/8 (2003), pp. 2001-2193.

Sherman, Carter: “Sexual Assault Allegations Seem to Be a Badge of Honor in Trump’s America. Was #MeToo an Epic Failure?”, in: The Guardian (March 30th, 2025).

U.S. Congress: Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. Public Law 117–90. U.S. Statutes at Large 136 (2022).

U.S. Congress: Speak Out Act. Public Law 117–224. U.S. Statutes at Large 136 (2022).

United States, President (Trump): Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing. Federal Register 90 (January 29, 2025). Signed January 20, 2025.

United States, President (Trump): Executive Order 14168: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. Federal Register 90 (January 30, 2025): 8615–8618. Signed January 20, 2025.

United States, President (Trump): Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit‑Based Opportunity, Federal Register 90, no. 8633 (January 21, 2025): published January 30, 2025.

Warner, Carol: “Trump’s EEOC Changes Explained: What HR Leaders Need to Know”, in: HRmorning (February 8th, 2025).

Warren, Abby et al.: “EEOC Enforcement Activities Take Shape under Second Trump Administration”, in: The National Law Review (March 24th, 2025).

Women Employed Institute: “Budget Cuts Affect Civil Rights Enforcement”, in: Bulletin. Women Employed Advocates, 3/3 (August 1982), p. 4, Barnard College Archive, Feminist Ephemera Collection, Box 89, Folder Women and Philanthropy.

Women Employed Institute: “Damage Report”, in: Bulletin, Women Employed Advocates, 3/4 (December 1982), p. 5, Barnard College Archive, Feminist Ephemera Collection, Box 89, Folder Women and Philanthropy.

Women Employed Institute: “EEOC Commissioners”, in: Bulletin. Women Employed Advocate 3/3 (August 1982), p. 5, Barnard College Archive, Feminist Ephemera Collection, Box 89, Folder Women and Philanthropy.

Women Employed Institute: “Reagan and Women: Policies Cause Widening ‘Gender Gap’”, in: Bulletin. Women Employed Advocates 3/2 (May, 1982), p. 1, Barnard College Archive, Feminist Ephemera Collection, Box 89, Folder Women and Philanthropy.

Women Employed Institute: “WE Report Criticizes Enforcement Agency Performance”, in: Women Employed News, 1982, Barnard College Archive, Feminist Ephemera Collection, Box 89, Folder Women and Philanthropy.

Working Women’s Institute: Letter Writing Campaign Notice, Example letter, Barnard College Archive, Research on Women Records, Box 95, Folder Publications of American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

Zippel, Katharin: The Politics of Sexual Harassment. A Comparative Study of the United States, the European Union, and Germany, New York et al. 2006.


Images:

Header Image: Heute.at, “Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth and President Trump”, online: https://www.heute.at/i/erbaermlich-trump-minister-verabscheut-europa-120098724/doc-1in4q55f20 (accessed June 2, 2025).

Figure 1: Official White House Photography, “President Biden Signing the Speak Out Act, 2022”, online: https://picryl.com/media/biden-signing-the-speak-out-act-f9f6a3 (accessed June 2, 2025).

Figure 2: Heute.at, “President Trump Signes a Series of Executive Orders, January 2025”, online: https://www.heute.at/i/trump-macht-ernst-usa-weisen-schon-erste-migranten-ab-120085359/doc-1ii4bucnj1 (accessed June 2, 2025).

Figure 3: Nick Youngson, “Sexual Harassmetn and Gavel”, online: https://thebluediamondgallery.com/legal08/s/sexual-harassment.html (accessed June 2, 2025).

Figure 4: Library of Congress, “Eleanor Holmes Norton EEOC Commissioner 1977-1981”, online: https://loc.getarchive.net/media/eleanor-holmes-norton-comm-of-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-e7d43a (accessed June 2, 2025).

Figure 5: Getarchive.net, “President Ronald Reagan Giving the Inaugural Address from the United States Capitol”, online: https://itoldya420.getarchive.net/amp/media/president-ronald-reagan-giving-the-inaugural-address-from-the-united-states-cad375 (accessed June 2, 2025).

Figure 6: Executive Office of the President of the United States, “President Reagan and EEOC Chair Clarence Thomas, 1986”, online: https://itoldya420.getarchive.net/amp/media/ronald-reagan-and-clarence-thomas-in-1986-7367ba (accessed June 2, 2025).


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
The Editors (July 3, 2025). When Bureaucracy Fails Victims: EEOC, Political Will, and the Trump Administration. HCA Graduate Blog. Retrieved May 10, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/149fu


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.