Government Contracts Maritime Military – Page 10

Employment Law This Week: Federal Contractors Alert: DEI Restrictions Reinstated by Appeals Court [Podcast, Video]

This week, we’re focused on federal contractors and the effects that the reinstatement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 will have on employers.
Federal Contractors Alert: DEI Restrictions Reinstated by Appeals Court
President Trump’s executive orders against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are back in effect after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed a nationwide injunction, posing new compliance challenges for federal contractors.
In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Nathaniel M. Glasser and Frank C. Morris, Jr., outline the implications for employers, focusing on the False Claims Act, whistleblower risks, and the need for certification of compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Tune in to learn what steps your organization can take to mitigate potential penalties and retaliation claims.
Other Highlights
Whistleblower Challenges and Employer Responses: One-on-One with Alex Barnard Managing whistleblower claims can be particularly challenging when they involve internal experts. Epstein Becker Green’s Alex Barnard shares insights on managing these challenges, distinguishing job duties from legitimate concerns, and investigating claims fairly.

What is DEI Discrimination? The Latest from the EEOC

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance and a Q&A document that provide additional details regarding what constitutes “DEI-Related Discrimination at Work” and what steps employees can take to address it through the administrative process. The guidance confirms that Title VII remains the law of the land, “prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race and sex,” and does not “provide any ‘diversity interest’ exception” to its antidiscrimination mandate.
DEI-Focused Executive Orders and Court Battles
The Trump administration has put employers – both public and private – on notice that DEI initiatives will be scrutinized and challenged. On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 (the EO) declaring employers’ policies and practices that “use dangerous, demeaning and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called [DEI]” to be illegal.
The EO applies to federal contractors but also targets private employers as it directs federal agencies to combat DEI initiatives in the private sector. Parts of the EO – most notably its enforcement provision – were enjoined nationwide by a district court judge in Virginia earlier in March. However, on March 14, the Fourth Circuit granted the Trump Administration’s application for stay pending appeal, which reinstated the EO (until further notice).
What is Unlawful DEI?
The EO broadly defined “impermissible DEI” to include (a) illegal discrimination/preferences, and (b) workforce “balancing” based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin, but did not provide any examples.
In its recent guidance, the EEOC reinforced longstanding Title VII antidiscrimination principles by stating, “DEI initiatives, polices, programs or practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated – in whole or in part – by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The guidance also provides concrete examples of what the EEOC views as illegal DEI, which include:

Disparate treatment of workers in access to or exclusion from (1) “training (including training characterized as leadership development programs),” (2) “mentoring, sponsorship, or workplace networking/networks,” and/or (3) “[i]nternships (including internships labeled as ‘fellowships’ or ‘summer associate programs’) . . .”
Employer-sponsored (broadly defined) activities that segregate, limit, or classify workers based on a protected class “such as employee clubs or groups . . . Employee Resource Groups (ERG), Business Resource Groups (BRG), or other employee affinity groups . . .”
Separation of workers into groups based on their “protected characteristic[s] when administering DEI or any trainings, workplace programming . . . even if the separate groups receive the same programming content or amount of employer resources.”
Making employment decisions related to employees’ protected characteristics based on the preferences of clients, customers, or coworkers.

The guidance emphasized that Title VII applies to “all members” of a protected class – not just minorities. On that basis, the EEOC clarified that it does not recognize “reverse discrimination” claims and that the EEOC does “not require a higher showing of proof for so-called ‘reverse’ discrimination claims.”
Next Steps:
Given the EEOC’s DEI guidance, employers should:

Review their hiring practices and materials for compliance with Title VII and the guidance.
Assess whether any company-supported employee groups limit membership on the basis of any protected characteristic(s).
Evaluate training programs for compliance with the guidance.
Train managers on the guidance and how to properly document hiring, promotion, and related employment decisions.

OFCCP – Changes Happening Now: A New Director and Minimum Wage

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced a new Director—Catherine Eschbach. In the announcement of her appointment, it noted she is expected to transition OFCCP to a new mission scope consistent with Executive Order 14173.
Prior to her appointment, Eschbach worked for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and focused on “complex constitutional, statutory, and administrative law issues,” including cases that affected OFCCP. Eschbach’s prior experience also includes her service as a judicial clerk to Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judge David Hittner, an appointment to the Grievance Oversight Committee by the Texas Supreme Court, and presidency of the Houston Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. The appointment of a new OFCCP Director is a likely an indicator that federal contractor compliance and the regulation of federal contractors will remain a priority for the new Administration.
In addition to a new OFCCP director, federal contractors also received news about changes to the minimum wage threshold applicable to federal contractors. On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order rescinding 18 executive orders from the Biden administration, including Executive Order 14026, which had increased the federal contractor minimum wage to $17.75 per hour. This action effectively removes the requirement for federal contractors and subcontractors to pay workers this higher wage.
The federal contractor minimum wage was first established by President Obama in 2014 (Executive Order 13658), setting an initial minimum wage of $10.10 per hour, subject to annual increases. The Biden administration’s 2021 Executive Order 14026 further raised this wage and phased out lower wages for tipped employees. By 2025, the minimum wage under Biden’s order had reached $17.75 per hour.
It is unclear whether contractors must revert to the Obama-era minimum wage of $13.30 per hour or follow the general federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour (or applicable state laws). The Department of Labor is expected to provide further guidance on this issue.
Employers should work with counsel to stay abreast of legal issues and ensure they are taking appropriate action.

Catherine Eschbach Named OFCCP Director Amid Executive Order 11246 Rollback

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the appointment of Catherine Eschbach as director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), signaling a new chapter for the agency following the rescission of Executive Order (EO) 11246, a nearly sixty-year-old executive order that had prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors.

Quick Hits

Catherine Eschbach has been named director of OFCCP to “oversee its transition to its new scope of mission.”
OFCCP will enforce EO 14173’s revocation of EO 11246, Eschbach said, stating that EO 11246 “had facilitated federal contractors adopting [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)] practices out of step with the requirements” of civil rights laws.
Contractors must unwind their EO 11246 compliance within ninety days of the issuance of EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”).

In her statement, Eschbach emphasized the administration’s policy shift: “I’m honored to serve as director of the OFCCP under the Trump Administration and oversee its transition to its new scope of mission.”
“President Trump made clear in his executive order on eliminating DEI that EO 11246 had facilitated federal contractors adopting DEI practices out of step with the requirements of our Nation’s civil rights laws and that, with the recission of EO 11246, the President mandates federal contractors wind those practices down within 90 days,” Eschbach said.
The new directive reflects a broader reorientation of OFCCP’s role. Eschbach stated that she was committed to “carrying out President Trump’s executive orders, which will restore a merit-based system to provide all workers with equal opportunity.”
Prior to her appointment, Eschbach worked for six years in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP’s appellate group, focusing on complex constitutional, statutory, and administrative law issues. In that role, she worked to limit the government’s reach, “including issues affecting OFCCP.”
It is unclear if OFCCP still has authority to review DEI activities of federal contractors after the rescission of EO 11246. Federal contractors may want to review their DEI initiatives, EO 11246 affirmative action programs, and broader compliance strategies in light of this leadership change and shifting enforcement priorities.

Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Executive Order Revoked

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order rescinding several policies from the previous administration, including Executive Order 14026, which had increased the minimum wage for federal contractors.
Background on Executive Order 14026
Signed on April 27, 2021, by then-President Joe Biden, Executive Order 14026 mandated that federal contractors pay a minimum wage of $15 per hour. This policy aimed to improve the livelihoods of workers on federal contracts and was set to adjust annually with inflation. By January 1, 2025, the minimum wage under this order had risen to $17.75 per hour.
Implications of the Rescission
The revocation of Executive Order 14026 means that federal contractors are no longer required to adhere to the previously mandated minimum wage rates. Instead, they will revert to using wage determinations provided under existing laws such as the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. This change could lead to variations in wages across different federal contracts, depending on the specific stipulations of each agreement.
Conclusion
The rescission of Executive Order 14026 marks a significant shift in federal labor policy, reflecting the current administration’s priorities. As this policy change unfolds, its full impact on the federal contracting landscape and the workforce involved remains to be seen.

New Executive Order Rescinds the $17.75 Per Hour Federal Contractor Minimum Wage

On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order rescinding eighteen (18) prior executive orders and actions, including Executive Order 14026’s substantial increase to the minimum wage for federal government contractors and subcontractors. The March 14 Executive Order puts to rest continuing legal uncertainty about the status of the increased minimum wage under Executive Order 14026, which had been invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but upheld by the Fifth and Tenth Circuits.
Executive Order 14026, issued in 2021, set forth a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, which has since increased to $17.75 per hour with adjustments for inflation. The $17.75 minimum wage is higher than the minimum wage applicable under any state’s law and is more than double the general federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Executive Order 14026 built upon the prior Executive Order 13658, issued in 2014, which provided for a $10.10 per hour minimum wage that subsequently increased to $11.25 per hour for inflation.
Importantly, the March 14 Executive Order did not rescind Executive Order 13658. Accordingly, the lower minimum wage set forth in the 2014 order, as adjusted, presumably remains in effect. In addition, the Department of Labor’s regulations implementing Executive Order 14026 (which have not yet been rescinded) were issued separately and in addition to those implementing Executive Order 13658. Therefore, the Department of Labor could rescind the newer regulations (14026) while leaving the prior version (13658) in place.
Until further regulatory action is taken, the rescission of Executive Order 14026 leaves another area of uncertainty about contractors’ obligations. Contracts subject to Executive Order 14026 may include the implementing FAR clause requiring payment of the increased minimum wage. It is unclear how or when agencies will take action to modify contracts incorporating Executive Order 14026’s minimum wage, or whether they will implement substitute language referencing the Executive Order 13658 minimum wage.
Contractors should closely review the applicable terms in any federal contracts with legal counsel in order to assess how their obligations may be affected by the new executive order. In addition, contractors seeking to change wages in response to Executive Order 14026’s rescission will need to review collective bargaining and state wage law requirements to avoid missteps in doing so.

Trump Revokes Biden Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Mandate: What to Expect Next

Takeaways

President Trump has rescinded President Biden’s 2021 executive order increasing the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors.
The minimum wage is now $13.30 per hour for federal contractors covered by President Obama’s 2014 executive order, which remains in effect.
Trump’s action does not formally revoke a Department of Labor rule implementing Biden’s wage mandate. However, there is no longer a basis for enforcing the rule.

BREAKING NEWS: OFCCP to Revisit Previously Submitted Contractor Files

The Wall Street Journal is reporting newly appointed OFCCP Director Catherine Eschbach announced to OFCCP staff that the Agency will review federal contractor affirmative action plans previously submitted to the Agency for evidence of discriminatory employment practices. The report quotes Director Eschbach’s email to staffers in which she states
…most of what OFCCP had been doing was out of step, if not flat out contradictory, to our country’s laws, and all reform options are on the table.”

It is unclear at this time what form these reviews will take or which contractors may be under review.
Importantly, the plans under review were submitted to OFCCP under the prior Executive Order 11246 and before the current administration’s recent issuance of Executive Order 14173, revoking EO11246.
This is a developing story so stay turned for further details.

From the Pickup Line to the Picket Line: What Employers Need to Know About the Gig Economy Labor Movement

The gig economy has emerged as a defining aspect of the modern workforce, transforming how people work, earn, and engage with employers. Unlike traditional full-time jobs, gig workers benefit from significant flexibility. Digital platforms, such as popular widely used ridesharing services and other platforms like TaskRabbit have played a key role in this shift, making gig work more accessible than ever.
Despite this newfound freedom, many workers have found themselves with limited power to influence a platform’s policies, including those involving compensation, benefits, and other working conditions. As a result, an organized labor movement has been gaining momentum within the gig economy, advocating for unions and the use of collective action to negotiate with employers for better protections and fairer treatment for workers.
Gig workers are frequently classified as independent contractors, which — if properly classified — excludes them from protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); specifically, the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. As frustrations among gig workers have increased, they have pushed for the right to collectively bargain under the NLRA and advocated for state laws that grant them this right, despite their classification as independent contractors. With the passage of “Question Three,” Massachusetts is the most recent example of gig workers securing collective bargaining rights despite their classification as independent contractors.
Classification as Independent Contractors Under the NLRA
The risk of misclassifying gig workers as independent contracts under the NLRA has become a growing concern as the test for worker classification continues to evolve. In a number of recent matters, workers have challenged their classification as independent contractors for labor law purposes, accusing their employers of violating the NLRA. Employers who rely on the use of freelance and gig workers must therefore remain vigilant to ensure they are correctly classifying these workers as employees where appropriate.
The factors currently considered when determining worker classification under the NLRA include:

The extent of control by the employer
Whether or not the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
Whether the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision
Skill required in the occupation
Whether the employer or individual supplies instrumentalities, tools, and place of work
Length of time for which the individual is employed
Method of payment
Whether or not work is part of the regular business of the employer
Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an independent contractor relationship
Whether the principal is or is not in business
Whether the evidence tends to show that the individual is, in fact, rendering services as an independent business

It is important to note that this classification test is not static and can shift as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) updates its interpretation of the law. Employers run the risk of violating the NLRA when their employees are not properly classified.
Moreover, those who engage independent contractors should also be mindful of the multiple independent contractor tests for other purposes, such as federal and state wage and hour, unemployment, and tax laws.
What You Need to Know: Massachusetts’ Question Three
Gig workers have also advocated for the enactment of state laws that provide for their right to collectively bargain despite their classification as independent contractors. In November 2024, in a historic vote, Massachusetts residents approved a ballot question (“Question Three”) allowing rideshare drivers to form unions and collectively bargain. With just over 53% of the voters in favor of the ballot, there will likely be many speed bumps and challenges from opponents along the road to implementation.
Question Three sets up a first-of-its-kind state-run collective bargaining scheme for independent contractors working in the transportation network space. This law allows drivers to form unions and collectively bargain. Further, it establishes a hearing process and an appeals board to oversee the bargaining process and resolve disputes. In essence, Massachusetts has created a unique hybrid model that gives gig workers the power to collectively negotiate for better pay and conditions without fundamentally altering the classification of their work status.
What to Expect Next
There are likely legal challenges ahead with respect to Question Three. With the voices of many drivers going unheard in the process, we anticipate there will be litigation challenging the formation of these unions. Additionally, both sides will likely quarrel over the implementation of this new system.
Unrest in the gig economy is not unique to Massachusetts. For example, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (covering a number of Western states) has ruled against local ordinances that gave rights for rideshare drivers to collectively bargain, citing antitrust concerns and NLRA preemption (meaning that the local laws are invalid because federal labor law controls with respect to collective bargaining-related issues). Unrest has also been seen in California, where voters, in a closely fought battle, voted to classify ride share drivers as “independent contractors” rather than “employees”. Similar movements are likely to continue to pop up across the country. We will likely see additional workers in various gig industries advocate for similar laws to Question Three to secure their rights to collectively bargain.
Conclusion
There is growing unrest in the gig economy. Employers must stay vigilant to ensure they are not misclassifying their workers as independent contractors instead of employees. While the passage of Question Three is a significant development in labor law, it will take some time before we see the full impact of this measure. Other states and industries are likely going to keep a close eye on developments and seek to implement similar programs.

Trump Executive Order Affects Federal Contractor Minimum Wage

On March 14, 2025, the President issued a new executive order (EO) entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.” This new executive order revokes EO 14026, issued by President Biden, which raised the minimum wage to $17.75 (effective January 1, 2025) for government contracts entered into after January 30, 2022 (including all renewals, extensions, and options). Some older contracts still operate under an Obama-issued executive order, EO 13658, which implemented a federal minimum wage that adjusts annually (currently it is $13.30, effective January 1, 2025).
In light of the revocation of EO 14026, we expect the Department of Labor (DOL) to issue a rule formally revoking EO 14026. The DOL also is not likely to enforce the higher federal minimum wage requirements of EO 14026. Practically, the revocation of EO 13658 means that EO 13838 (issued by President Trump during his first term) now becomes effective again. This means that the minimum wage requirements of EO 13658 are reinstated, and federal contractors with contracts entered into before January 30, 2022, and contracts entered into after January 30, 2022, will now be required to pay $13.30 as a federal minimum wage.
Contractors with contracts that include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause imposing EO 14026 presumably are contractually obligated to pay at least $17.75 per hour, but this higher minimum wage will likely not be enforced by DOL, now that EO 14026 has been revoked. Also, state minimum wage laws could still apply.

Top Five Labor Law Developments for February 2025

A federal judge for the District of Columbia held President Donald Trump’s termination of National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox violated the National Labor Relations Act; Wilcox’s reinstatement restores Board quorum. Wilcox v. Trump and Kaplan, No. 1:25-cv-00334 (D.D.C Mar. 6, 2025). The decision stems from President Trump’s removal of Wilcox as a Board member prior to the expiration of her term. In her lawsuit, Wilcox argued her unprecedented removal violated the Act, which allows the president to remove Board members only in cases of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” and only after “notice and hearing.” Wilcox cited for support the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for federal agency leaders. The Trump Administration filed a Notice of Appeal with the D.C. District Court shortly after the judge’s decision. In the meantime, Wilcox’s return restores the Board’s three-member quorum, and it can resume issuing decisions.
Acting Board General Counsel (GC) William Cowen issued a memorandum rescinding dozens of former GC Jennifer Abruzzo’s enforcement initiatives. GC Memo 25-05. The memo signals Cowen’s intention to undo many of Abruzzo’s policies, including those related to protected concerted activities, settlement agreements, and employment agreement provisions like “stay-or-pay” provisions. While GC memos do not reverse Board decisions, the memo indicates the GC will interpret the law and act in a manner more favorable to employers’ interests. The memo also aims to address the Board’s unsustainable case backlog, largely due to the prior administration’s expansive enforcement priorities. Overall, GC Memo 25-05 impacts 31 GC memos issued between 2021 and 2025. It is likely the Board’s regional offices will no longer prosecute cases seeking to overturn longstanding Board law in favor of more employee-friendly standards.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary — former U.S. Representative Lori Chavez-DeRemer — by a 67-32 vote. Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination faced criticism from business groups and Republican lawmakers due to her previous support for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would significantly expand union organizing rights if passed. However, Chavez-DeRemer backtracked on her support for the PRO Act during the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing. Chavez-DeRemer has since committed to preserving states’ right-to-work laws and protecting independent contractor and franchise models.
The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) ratified a six-year contract with the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), with almost 99 percent of members voting in favor of the agreement. The contract provides job guarantees amid concerns that automated technology would replace many union jobs. It also provides a 62 percent pay raise that was agreed to prior to a three-day strike in October 2024. Both parties previously praised President Trump for his assistance in helping the parties reach an agreement. The contract, which covers approximately 45,000 workers, will be effective through Sept. 30, 2030. Ratification also prevents another port strike that would have disrupted the nation’s supply chain.
The Board issued a “Return to Office Policy” requiring workers to return to the office full-time by March 31, 2025, according to a letter obtained by Law360. The Board cited guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and a recent Trump memorandum as the basis for the decision. Exceptions to the policy include accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act and temporary medical conditions. The policy has sparked backlash from the unions representing Board workers, including the NLRB Professional Association, which argue the policy violates their collective bargaining agreements. Acting GC Cowen recently stated that, while he will do what he can to prevent a reduction in the Board’s staff, the Agency is not immune from layoffs.

President Trump Ends $15-Per-Hour Contractor Minimum Wage Rate After Filing a Brief Defending Power to Set the Minimum Wage

On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14236—“Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”—revoking eighteen executive orders and actions issued by former president Joe Biden.
In particular, this new EO has revoked EO 14026 of April 27, 2021, which had established a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for workers on certain federal contracts. The revocation followed the U.S. Department of Labor’s filing of a brief on March 13, 2025, stating that EO 14026 was a valid exercise of presidential authority.

Quick Hits

On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14236, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” revoking EO 14026, which had set a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for federal contractors.
The EO 13658 minimum wage rate (currently $13.30 per hour) is still in effect for certain covered contracts.
EO 14026 and its implementing regulations are still subject to ongoing litigation.
Federal contractors and subcontractors must continue to follow other federally mandated compensation requirements, including minimum wage rates and applicable wage determinations.

The $15-Per-Hour Minimum Wage Rate for Federal Contractors
EO 14026 generally required minimum wages for workers performing work on or in connection with contracts covered under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act; contracts covered under the Davis-Bacon Act; contracts in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and concession contracts. Because of yearly adjustments, in 2025, the applicable wage rate under EO 14026 was $17.75 per hour.
Since its issuance on April 27, 2021, EO 14026 has been under legal attack, primarily concerning whether its promulgation was within presidential authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (also known as the Procurement Act). The Fifth Circuit (within presidential authority), Ninth Circuit (not within presidential authority), and Tenth Circuit (within presidential authority) have split over whether the order was within President Biden’s procurement authority.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to address the split. In February 2025, in the Fifth Circuit case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas called on the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the three-judge panel’s unanimous decision. On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opposed rehearing on the basis that EO 14026 fell, as the panel of judges held, “directly within the President’s purview.” On March 17, 2025, the Texas Office of the Attorney General notified the Fifth Circuit of the revocation of EO 14026 and asked the Fifth Circuit to withhold issuance of the panel’s mandate and vacate the panel’s opinion.
EO 14236 of March 14, 2025, does not purport to address the existing regulatory or procurement basis for EO 14026. Specifically, to implement EO 14026, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published regulations on November 24, 2021, entitled, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) amended Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.222-55, a provision that remains in many federal contracts.
Consequently, we expect further action from the WHD, procuring agencies, and/or the FAR Council to address this existing regulatory framework. We also expect that, even if EO 14236 ends the Fifth Circuit appeal, litigation over the scope of a president’s authority to issue executive orders related to procurement will continue unabated.
Other Minimum Wage and Compensation Obligations for Federal Contractors
Importantly, EO 14026 was not the first EO specifying a general minimum wage for federal contractors. Former president Barack Obama issued EO 13658 on February 12, 2014 (“Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors”). EO 14026 superseded EO 13658 as of January 30, 2022, to the extent inconsistent with EO 14026. Thus, the EO 13658 minimum wage ($13.30 per hour as of January 1, 2025) has remained applicable only to covered contracts that were entered into on or between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and which were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022.
In addition, the Davis-Bacon Act and the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, for example, continue to require prevailing wages by certain federal contractors and subcontractors that perform services or construction work. However, 2023 changes—which, in particular, expanded the scope of Davis-Bacon coverage and changed the development of wage rates and their incorporation into contracts—to the Davis-Bacon regulations are also subject to pending legal challenges.
Key Takeaways
Federal contractors and grant recipients may want to consider taking the following steps:

Identifying any contracts subject to federally specified minimum wages and watching for notices from the FAR Council or the contracting agency implementing the revocation of EO 14026
Monitoring Davis-Bacon-related litigation if performing under Davis-Bacon-covered contracts
Monitoring executive order challenges to presidential authority under the Procurement Act