Goldman Sachs has named 109 new partners, its largest class since 2010, but the investment bank broke with tradition on Thursday by not publishing the customary breakdown of the group by gender and race. The omission arrives as US companies increasingly shy away from disclosing diversity data.

A larger class, a smaller disclosure

Goldman's 2026 partner-class announcement, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, lists 109 newly appointed partners. That compares with 95 named in 2024, a 14.7% increase between the two classes announced two years apart.

The 2024 announcement, however, also included demographic details that are absent this year. Of that class, 26 partners (27%) were women and 17 (18%) were Asian, while six (6%) came from Hispanic/Latino communities and four (4%) were Black. The latest announcement offers no such figures — a signal of reduced disclosure rather than necessarily reduced diversity. With this year's breakdown withheld, those 2024 figures now stand as the most recent published snapshot of the makeup of a Goldman partner class.

According to Reuters, roughly 85% of the newcomers work in revenue-generating businesses. An executive also said that more than 100 women will serve among the bank's roughly 500 partners overall, though that figure says nothing about the incoming class itself.

An executive points to the legal climate

A Goldman executive told Reuters that the shifting legal climate informed the decision to withhold this year's demographic breakdown, while maintaining that workforce diversity remains important to the bank's business. The move comes as the Trump administration challenges certain corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

The explanation did not convince everyone. Mayra Rodriguez Valladares, managing principal at MRV Associates, questioned why a bank of Goldman's influence would withhold the figures rather than clearly state its position on equal opportunity.

Other diversity disclosures remain

Goldman continues to publish diversity information elsewhere. Its 2023 People Strategy Report covered the partner class and US workforce for 2022. The bank also emphasized in its 2025 filing that workforce diversity is key to its commercial success, and its 2026 proxy statement describes the composition of its board. None of these disclosures, however, shows the demographic makeup of this year's partner class. Future editions of these recurring publications, along with the next partner-class announcement, are where comparable demographic figures would next surface if Goldman elects to publish them — and whether they do will indicate how far the reporting pullback extends.

What the EEOC does and does not restrict

Goldman's decision raises a question: does US employment law bar companies from publishing diversity figures? Guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not prohibit companies from voluntarily publishing aggregate demographic figures. Instead, it warns that employment decisions influenced even partly by race, sex or another protected characteristic can violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination.

Separately, in July 2026, the EEOC proposed ending mandatory annual workforce reports on race and sex, estimating that they cost employers nearly $275 million a year. That proposal concerns information submitted to regulators and would not prevent companies from voluntarily sharing diversity statistics with the public.

What investors and clients lose in the gap

The reporting pullback extends beyond Goldman. The Conference Board found that 53% of S&P 100 companies changed their DEI messaging or organization in 2025 filings. Still, tracking progress requires consistent data: Deloitte's global study found that in 2021, women held 21% of financial-services board seats, 19% of C-suite positions and just 5% of CEO roles. Such benchmarks help measure women's advancement into leadership only when companies keep publishing comparable figures.

Goldman shares were down about 2% in 2026 as of November 5, while the S&P 500 had gained 8%, according to Reuters. There is no evidence that the missing disclosure caused the difference; the concern is transparency. Without the latest partner-class breakdown, employees, investors and clients have less information to assess whether Goldman's stated commitment to diversity is reflected in its leadership appointments.