SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
unions
Help Protect Federal Workers From Trump's Union-Busting Attacks
Only months after courting union voters with pro-worker campaign rhetoric, President Trump is on track to become the most anti-union president in modern American history.
Oct 05, 2025
During a 2024 campaign stop in Detroit, President Donald Trump energized the crowd by proclaiming: “I will protect what is ours. I will protect our workers. I will protect our jobs.” Then, asking the audience to look around at empty buildings and remember how they’ve been ripped off, Trump continued, “These pro-worker policies are among the many reasons I’ve been overwhelmingly endorsed by the rank-and-file membership of the Teamsters.”
Only months after courting union voters with pro-worker campaign rhetoric, President Trump is on track to become the most anti-union president in modern American history.
The President’s record is clear: Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, Neil Gorsuch, cast the deciding vote in Janus v AFSCME, a “right-to-work” ruling Trump praised for allowing workers to opt out of union dues while freeriding off the benefits of collective bargaining provided by dues-paying members. The president’s two labor secretaries, Eugene Scalia and Lori Chavez-DeRemer, have vigorously peeled away protective regulations for workers. And following the unprecedented firing without cause of Gwen Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that addresses unfair labor practices and safeguards workers’ rights remains paralyzed by its inability to reach a quorum.
But what sets President Trump apart is his targeting of public sector unions.
In early April, Representatives Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Ryan Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced bipartisan legislation, “The Protect America’s Workforce Act” (H.R. 2250), to overturn Trump’s executive order and restore all terminated collective bargaining agreements.
During his first term, President Trump issued executive orders targeting federal employee unions, aimed at “weakening their ability to bargain contracts and curtailing the amount of time union representatives can spend helping members with their complaints,” according to Andrea Hsu of NPR’s "Morning Edition." Union officials complained that their ability to file grievances was almost nonexistent.
The president then kicked off his second term with an anti-union executive order, called “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce,” that allows the reclassification of as many as 10,000 workers, making them at-will employees and stripping union protections. But to this point, no traditional “Schedule F” employees have been reclassified.
Perhaps that’s because President Trump has found an easier path to union busting.
In March, the President cited national security concerns as he directed 22 federal agencies to disregard collective bargaining contracts covering 950,000 federal employees. In late August, he signed a second order “stripping union rights” from 440,000 “employees at six additional agencies,” according to the New York Times. These employees represent the overwhelming majority of unionized federal workers.
Public sector unions have been a bulwark against declining labor power over the past half-century. While private sector unionization has withered to 5.9% (from 35% in the 1950s), unions still represent 32.2% of public employees, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report. But in only a few months, President Trump has removed union protections from more than a million federal workers, representing over 15% of the 7 million public-sector union members nationwide.
If the president’s moves survive legal challenges, he will be the single biggest union buster in American history, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute.
But there is hope.
In early April, Representatives Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Ryan Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced bipartisan legislation, “The Protect America’s Workforce Act” (H.R. 2250), to overturn Trump’s executive order and restore all terminated collective bargaining agreements. A companion bill that includes a repeal of the most recent executive order has since been introduced in the Senate.
The bill’s authors need 218 signatures to force a vote against the will of House leadership. As of September 17, it has 216 signatures, including 213 Democrats and 3 Republicans, according to the American Federation of Government Employees.
If passed in the House and Senate, the bill becomes law and overrides Trump’s union-busting executive orders, even if the courts uphold them. The president could then sign the bill into law or veto it and send the legislation back to Congress where an override requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber.
In either case, it remains possible to protect the collective bargaining rights of federal employees. So, call your representatives. Flood their inboxes. Let them know that we intend to stand up for our federal civil servants.
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Is Not a Drill: Bravery as Strategy in the Face of American Tragedy
In recent memory, the prospect of a president preventing congressional elections from taking effect has been unimaginable. But today, it is not at all hard to imagine that this could happen.
Oct 02, 2025
Succumbing to fear often leads to mistakes, including inaction, or too little action, too late.
Look to the year ahead. Those counting on the 2026 elections to provide a course correction should think again.
In the United States, in any normal midterm election, the party that holds the White House loses control of Congress. This was true in 1994 with Clinton, 2002 and 2006 with Bush, 2010 and 2014 with Obama, 2018 with Trump, and 2022 with Biden. It is a truism which—given how deeply unpopular the Trump administration is right now—should remain true in 2026. But it may not.
In 2020, Trump was faced with a classic “Dictator’s Dilemma.” He feared that if he relinquished power, he would be brought to account for his actions. On January 6th, 2021, he attempted a violent coup that was only thwarted due to the refusal of the U.S. military and his own Vice President to subvert the will of the voters.
Now Trump is back and he is faced with a similar prospect. As his advisor Peter Navarro said on public radio last week, the mindset of the Trump administration is that it must destroy its political opponents prior to the 2026 elections, and that it cannot allow the Democrats to take control of Congress next year.
In recent memory, the prospect of a president preventing congressional elections from taking effect has been unimaginable. But today, it is not at all hard to imagine that this could happen.
For instance, unlike the Electoral College, there are no constitutional provisions that speak directly to how a new House of Representatives is seated. Instead, the rules governing the swearing-in of new House members are determined by the outgoing House. If competing House delegations arrive from states like Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Virginia, will Speaker Johnson and the narrow outgoing Republican majority seat the representatives-elect certified by state election authorities? Or will they follow Trump’s dictates, as they have just done this week in refusing to seat Representative-elect Grijalva of Arizona?
Of course, this is only one possibility—one that Americans may never be so lucky as to face. On the night of Thursday, September 25th, Trump issued his second anti-anti-fascist order. Unlike his first order, which was heavy on rhetoric and light on action, this second order directed all federal law enforcement to “investigate . . . disrupt and dismantle” any individuals and organizations engaged in “anti-fascism . . . anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” as well as “extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
We all knew this was coming. This is not a drill.
The following day, the architect of Trump’s ICE policies, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, described the Democratic Party as, “not a political party; it is a domestic extremist organization." Meanwhile, Trump summoned America’s top military officers to Quantico to tell them to prepare for war, even as he escalated his threats against major U.S. cities and other American countries.
In the past, some argued that the way Trump tried to rule was “personalist,” a way of saying that he makes government all about himself. Others argued that he represented a broader authoritarian movement that mixes big-state capitalism with racial nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Today, it should be clear that both arguments were correct. We all knew this was coming. This is not a drill.
The psychological toll is real. After the deaths of so many good people, from the Jewish congregants murdered by a white supremacist at the Tree of Life in Pittsburgh, to the massacre by a rightwing religious fundamentalist of 49 people at the Pulse night club in Orlando, to the young woman rammed with a car by a neo-Nazi in Charlottesville, to the dozens of Americans killed by paramilitaries and police in 2020 while protesting against the police murder of George Floyd, to the many people who have died in ICE detention centers, to the two Minnesota legislators and their spouses shot by a rightwing extremist in the Twin Cities, to the teenagers murdered by a white supremacist at Evergreen High School on September 10th and the father killed by an ICE agent after dropping his children off at school in Chicago, Americans have been forced to reckon with what was once unthinkable. It is not only the death of our republic that we grieve.
In times like these we must remember that repressive violence often fails. This can be particularly true when government repression is in a middle range.
Relatively low levels of repression can sometimes keep a lid on social protest, discouraging citizens from moving from words to deeds. High levels of repression can often drive protest movements underground, making it difficult for activists to communicate with each other, much less with the broader public.
Because Trump and his policies are so unpopular, low levels of repression are no longer effective. Instead, his administration is escalating its use of violence. And while he has expressed admiration for brutal dictators like Kim Jong Un of North Korea, for the moment Trump does not have the ability to successfully suppress the democratic opposition. As a result, American communities are experiencing repression that oscillates in the middle range from low to high and back to low again.
Social movement studies show that if repression is in this middle range that is when it most often backfires. In this middle range, repression can produce popular outrage even as it fails to quell public protest. This is why we must be brave right now: Not because courage is admirable, but because it is opportune, smart, and necessary.
We must be brave right now: Not because courage is admirable, but because it is opportune, smart, and necessary.
What then must we do? First, Americans must publicly show our bravery. We call street protests “demonstrations” because of what they show: They are demonstrations of strength. They reveal depth of feeling, they proclaim numbers, they show who has overcome fear and is prepared to act. Small and mid-sized protests are happening daily in hundreds of American communities right now. But for the moment, they are not demonstrating the level of national opposition that actually exists to what Trump is doing.
Instead, most are waiting for the next planned major national day of action on October 18th. In the past, I have been an organizer of nationally coordinated protests like these. I understand the rhythms of coalition work and the need to assemble resources and organize mobilization. But we should not get stuck in only one pattern of organizing. It has been four months since the last major national day of action. In the absence of mass public demonstrations, Democratic elected officials are left as the primary opposition voices to Trump. That is not good for them—and certainly not for for us.
American labor unions have the power to lead a democratic opposition. Those who are union members or in union families have an important role to play. Some unions have provided significant leadership already. But anyone who was in the streets of Detroit in 1997, Seattle in 1999, Los Angeles in 2006, Madison in 2011, Chicago in 2012, or of Oklahoma City and Charleston, West Virginia in 2018, knows that our unions have the ability to bring many more people into street demonstrations. Labor unions also often have strong ties with community, faith, student, veteran, farmer, and environmental organizations. Together, they have the ability to move more people into the streets, more often, and on shorter notice.
Second, law enforcement officers and members of the U.S. military also have power. Despite Trump’s demands for personal loyalty to him and him alone, many officers and enlisted personnel take their allegiances and their oaths to the constitution and the Republic very seriously.
Historically, both in the United States and in many other countries, military and police forces have sometimes refused orders requiring them to violate their oaths. At times, they have taken the side of the people against authoritarian governments. Being lectured by a chickenhawk about making war on the American people could not have sat well.
Today we face the unthinkable. But the resilience and resistance of American cities show that another world is possible.
This is another reason that public demonstrations are important; they show those entrusted with public safety where the people stand. It is also one reason why disciplined nonviolence is critical; the contrast between legitimate protest and illegitimate repression must be clear. And it suggests that the US needs its moral authorities—its religious, community, and cultural leaders—to lead an ongoing campaign against all political violence.
This brings me to a third insight about this time in American history. At the moment, our cities are where the current crisis is being determined and where the possibility of a better world is being built. American democracy is deepest in our communities. They are where neighbors look after neighbors, schools support children and families, and government agencies are closest to the people they serve. Our cities, towns, and villages are where much needed reforms to provide good housing, healthy food, meaningful work, sustainable economies, sanctuary from violence, representative elections, and more democracy in every part of our daily lives are taking shape. For these reasons, our cities are the places both most targeted by Trump and they are where he has met his most determined resistance.
Petra Kelly once told us that, “If we don't do the impossible, we shall be faced with the unthinkable.” Today we face the unthinkable. But the resilience and resistance of American cities show that another world is possible. We simply must be brave enough to demonstrate our resolve, to recognize that there is no going back to the imaginary safety of the pre-Trump era, and to build a new system as he tears the old one down around us. The national institutions of the old republic cannot provide salvation. Our cities, our community institutions, our unions, and our courage in demonstrating the spiritual power of the democratic creed are the potent mix that can overcome our common tragedy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Washington Post Union Speaks Out Against Columnist's Firing Over Charlie Kirk Comments
"The Post not only flagrantly disregarded standard disciplinary processes, it also undermined its own mandate to be a champion of free speech," said the Post Guild.
Sep 15, 2025
The union representing employees at The Washington Post on Monday condemned the paper for firing columnist Karen Attiah for comments she made about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
In a statement, the Washington Post Guild said that firing Attiah betrayed the paper's mission to defend free speech in the United States.
"The Post not only flagrantly disregarded standard disciplinary processes, it also undermined its own mandate to be a champion of free speech," the union said. "The right to speak freely is the ultimate personal liberty and the foundation of Karen’s 11-year career at the Post."
The union also said it was "proud to call Karen a colleague and a longtime union sibling" and that it "stands with her and will continue to support her and defend her rights."
Attiah announced on Monday morning that she had been fired from the Post over social media posts in the wake of Kirk's murder that were critical of his legacy but in no way endorsed or celebrated any form of political violence.
"The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being 'unacceptable,' 'gross misconduct,' and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues—charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false," she explained. "They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold."
Attiah only directly referenced Kirk once in her posts and said she had condemned the deadly attack on him “without engaging in excessive, false mourning for a man who routinely attacked Black women as a group, put academics in danger by putting them on watch lists, claimed falsely that Black people were better off in the era of Jim Crow, said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and favorably reviewed a book that called liberals 'Unhumans.'"
Independent progressive news site Drop Site News has published a running list on X documenting dozens of people who so far have been fired, suspended, or placed under investigation for their social media posts related to Kirk in the wake of his death. So far, says Drop Site News, over half of those targeted have been educators.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular