

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said an advocate at the ACLU.
The Trump administration has billed its "mass deportation" agenda as a necessity to bring about an age of prosperity for US-born workers. But a new report suggests it's actually doing the opposite—exacerbating an already severe affordability crisis by suppressing wages, killing jobs, and raising costs.
On Wednesday, the ACLU and AFL-CIO published an analysis examining how the administration's unprecedented deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to communities around the country has not only created a climate of fear, but also caused labor shortages, reduced economic activity, and given employers new tools to suppress employees' wages.
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said Naureen Shah, director of government affairs at the ACLU's equality division.
Previous national data has already shown that, contrary to the Trump administration's argument that rounding up immigrant laborers simply creates room for those born in the US, areas that have experienced increases in ICE activity have also seen employment reductions for US-born workers.
"In our interdependent labor market, harm to one group of workers spills over to all those who labor alongside them or within the same supply chain, regardless of immigration status. Roughly 1 in 5 workers in our country is an immigrant, spanning all sectors of the economy," the report explains.
"Targeting this large and vital segment of the workforce sharply reduces the supply of labor, threatening the ability of employers to generate revenue and cover business expenses, including the wages of any remaining workers," it continues.
Reducing the labor supply consequently reduces production. The report argues that this is why industries with large numbers of immigrant laborers have seen skyrocketing costs for their products nationwide.
Data from previous deportation surges during the Obama administration shows that immigration enforcement has reduced construction labor, resulting in nearly 2,000 fewer completed homes on average and an 18% increase in home prices.
In June 2026, data showed that while core inflation was just 2.6% over the previous year, prices had shot up much more dramatically in immigrant-heavy sectors: The cost of lettuce was up 32.1%, landscaping was up 10.8%, home health care climbed 10.7%, whole milk increased 9%, and canned fruit jumped 7.9%.
The report also argues that ICE surges, which have often involved racial profiling and indiscriminate targeting, use of excessive force, and arrests of US citizens, have created terror in communities that suppresses economic activity.
A May working paper from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, which examined nearly 5,400 raids around the country during 2025, showed that areas targeted by ICE raids experienced a 2.7% decline in foot traffic and a 6.2% decline in spending per business per week, which the author extrapolated would amount to 8.1 billion fewer visits and as much as $14 billion in forgone spending annually across the nation.
US-born employees in sectors with large numbers of immigrant workers were hit especially hard. Data from "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota earlier this year demonstrates this in miniature.
Research released in June by the Upjohn Institute estimated that the surge of immigration agents cost the state’s leisure-and-hospitality sector 4,600 jobs, 3.8 million work hours, and $71 million in wages between January and March.
Economist Exequiel Hernandez, quoted in the ACLU/AFL-CIO report, said these findings highlight the danger of creating an "economy of fear."
"If fewer people are showing up to work, they’re making less income, they’re spending less," he explained. "If they’re spending less, businesses have to cut back in hiring and selling, and it’s really quite damaging."
The report cites projections from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) last year on what this could mean if the Trump administration meets its target of deporting 1 million people per year.
Using data from previous immigration enforcement studies, the EPI estimated that nearly 6 million fewer people could be employed by the end of President Donald Trump's second term if the administration follows through on its deportation promises. That includes 3.3 million immigrants, but also 2.6 million US-born workers, many of whom are working in immigrant-heavy sectors.
The report argues that a pathway to citizenship rather than deportation would not only be a more humane solution, but also deliver economic benefits that ripple through the economy, including for US-born residents.
It cites projections that allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens would increase US gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly $2 trillion over a decade and generate hundreds of billions in new tax revenue.
This is because legalization would allow workers to move into jobs that better match their skills rather than being confined to low-paying jobs that tend to accept them. It would also remove immigration enforcement as a threat that employers could use to suppress wages, both for immigrant and US-born workers.
"Working people are paying the price for an immigration system that is destabilizing entire industries and communities and making it easier to exploit workers,” said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. “As this report demonstrates, a broad pathway to citizenship for all would raise wages, create more and better jobs, and strengthen our economy in ways that help all of us."
We need to hold lawmakers who make working people suffer to enrich the already wealthy accountable.
My mom worked harder than anyone I know. She wanted a good life for us. It was a hard life—I remember the Christmas she had to pawn our gifts to pay the light bill—but she made it special for us.
Now I have two kids of my own, and I want them to have every opportunity that other children have.
The landscape is tough out there. Like many Americans, I can’t afford childcare, and finding work that accommodates my need to care for my young children is hard. With inflation, the little income I have doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to.
I’m grateful to have assistance with food, housing, and healthcare through our social safety net programs.
Food programs like SNAP (also known as “food stamps”) and WIC (that’s the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) have literally saved our lives when we’ve been hungry. I wouldn’t be able to feed my children without them. And thanks to Medicaid, we have healthcare.
But I’m sick with worry about the cuts to SNAP and Medicaid that are barreling my way. The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” slashed these programs last year so lawmakers could slash taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and some of the worst cuts will take place after this year’s midterms.
The uncertainty is causing so much stress. The first change I noticed is they cut off my eyeglasses subsidy. What’s next? Meanwhile, the cost of living keeps going up and up, outpacing wage gains for me and countless others. Our SNAP benefits cover much less than they did a year ago, and that’s before potential cuts take effect.
I feel like I’m waiting for a bomb to drop on me and my kids, and I’m not the only one.
“The average minimum-wage worker must work nearly 116 hours per week, nearly three full-time jobs, to afford a two-bedroom rental home,” the National Low Income Housing Coalition reports. That’s the truth—my own sister works three jobs and still has to live with roommates.
Lawmakers are telling us we can’t have healthcare now unless we work, even in areas with low wages. Yet those making the laws enjoy free government-socialized healthcare and high wages.
They say SNAP benefits can’t be used for a cake or soda for my child’s birthday. Yet no one would stop the wealthy from using their $1 trillion in tax cuts under the “Big Beautiful Bill” to buy their kid a yacht.
Poor and low-income people deserve to be happy too. We deserve healthcare, food, housing, and even a child’s small birthday party. It feels like we’re being punished for working regular jobs—and like lawmakers want to keep us down so we don’t fight back against this inequality.
But we are fighting back.
I’ve started attending our local town hall meetings and hearing the stories of injustice and poverty. I started volunteering with a non-profit organization in my community. I help get goods to people in need, even as I am also in need, because that’s what we do. Poor and low-income people help each other out, because we understand what it’s like to see our kids go without while we work our fingers to the bone.
But we can’t do it alone. We need to demand from lawmakers that instead of cutting our healthcare, food, and housing benefits, we need to expand them to meet the great need in this country. We need a livable wage so we can afford market rent and rising food prices.
And we need to hold lawmakers who make working people suffer to enrich the already wealthy accountable.
A new report shows that Walmart could have funded a nearly $4,000 bonus for every single one of the company's employees with the amount of money it spent buying back its own stock last year.
A report published Thursday shows that the top 100 lowest-wage corporations in the US pay their CEOs 614 times more than their median workers on average while also pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into stock buybacks, which further boost the wealth of top executives and rich shareholders.
The new report, released by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), examines the 100 corporations in the S&P 500 index that pay their median workers the least—a list that includes Walmart, Amazon, Target, DoorDash, and Home Depot. Between 2019 and 2025, the IPS report shows, the "Low-Wage 100" spent a combined $718 billion on stock buybacks.
IPS characterizes share repurchases as "a financial maneuver that artificially inflates CEOs’ stock-based pay and siphons resources out of worker wages and long-term investments."
"Walmart ranked No. 1 in buyback spending among Low-Wage 100 firms in 2025," the report observes. "The giant retailer spent $8.1 billion on share repurchases—a sum that could have funded a $3,851 bonus for each of the firm’s 2.1 million employees."
The CEOs at the Low-Wage 100 have seen their compensation rise by over 41% on average—without adjusting for inflation—since 2019, more than double the increase that the companies' median workers have seen during the same period, lagging behind rising costs.
"Average CEO compensation within the Low-Wage 100 hit $17.5 million in 2025. The group’s average median worker pay sat at just $36,571 last year," IPS found. "The average CEO-worker pay ratio of Low-Wage 100 firms has widened from 574 to 1 in 2019 to 614 to 1 in 2025. Seventeen of the 100 corporations reported pay ratios of 1,000 to 1 or higher."
The company with the highest CEO-worker pay ratio in 2025 was Lumentum, which paid its top executive 2,884 times as much as its median worker last year.
"Over the past year," the IPS report notes, "the CEOs of the Low-Wage 100 pocketed huge paychecks while looking the other way as their employees grappled with fears of ICE actions, the loss of vital healthcare and food assistance programs, and attempts to roll back key protections against racial and gender discrimination."
Far from wielding their power and influence to advocate on behalf of their own employees, IPS observed, the 100 leading corporations deployed their armies of lobbyists to push "tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, legislation that slashed Medicaid and SNAP programs on which many of these firms’ employees rely."
“The Low-Wage 100 includes many of the world’s most influential CEOs,” said Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at IPS and lead author of the new report. “They could be using their political and economic clout to defend their workers against multiple threats. Instead, at this precarious moment in our democracy, they’ve chosen to remain silent.”
IPS concludes its report by recommending that lawmakers pursue three policy solutions: Increasing taxes on companies with large CEO-worker pay gaps, expanding the excise tax on stock buybacks, and "leveraging government contracts and subsidies" to force changes at major corporations.
"A bipartisan provision in the pending Senate defense authorization bill would bar military contractors from engaging in stock buybacks," the report notes. "This builds on modest Biden administration progress to use the power of the public purse to rein in CEO pay. But governments at all levels could be doing much more to leverage this power against executive excess."
As inflation has wiped out wage growth, 53% of voters said they were worse off financially than when Trump took office, including nearly a quarter of Republicans.
President Donald Trump's approval rating has hit a new low as the majority of Americans—including many of his own voters—now say they are economically worse off under his second administration.
In a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Monday, just 33% of Americans said they approved of Trump's performance in the White House, while 64% disapproved, a drop from 35% approval earlier in the month. They're the worst marks he's received during this term and are tied with his worst ever, which came in December 2017.
Trump's nadir comes as a majority of Americans say their finances have gotten worse since he came to power. In a Financial Times poll released on Sunday, more than 53% of registered voters said they were worse off since January 2025. This includes 57% of independents, but also nearly a quarter of Republicans.
Voters' economic angst aligns with what the metrics show. After hitting a three-year peak of 4.2% in May, inflation was still higher in July than it was when Trump took office, at 3.4%. Real wages declined as hourly pay failed to keep up with inflation, and the economy shed 23,000 jobs last month.
Trump responded to this bleak report by celebrating that the economy was "doing unbelievably from the standpoint of Wall Street," with the stock market continuing to soar.
The pocketbook issues faced by many Americans have been made worse by Trump's war with Iran, which has caused oil prices to spike, triggering a surge in gasoline prices and inflation that has rippled throughout the economy.
The war began unpopular and has only grown more so as the conflict, which Trump said would be over in weeks, approaches its sixth month. In a Reuters poll released in late July, only about a third of Americans said they supported it.
After backing out of a peace agreement earlier this summer, Trump has doubled down on the war in recent weeks. Americans, regardless of party, are now overwhelmingly doubtful that it will end any time soon.
Among all adults, 4 in 5 said they believed the war would "go on for a long time." This includes 80% of independents, but also 71% of Republicans. Across all parties, just 16% said they believed the war would "end in a matter of weeks."
There are increasing signs that even Trump's core base is beginning to sour on him. An Economist/YouGov poll out last week showed that his overall approval among GOP voters had fallen to a second-term low of 79%.
Even more concerning for him is a decline in enthusiasm among supporters: Where 68% said they "strongly approve" of Trump near the start of his term, just 48% now feel that way.
Democratic voters, meanwhile, appear fired up as November approaches. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll from July showed that Democrats have a 10-point advantage over the GOP among those who say they are certain to vote.
"However the White House tries to spin these numbers, their talking points ring hollow for people who are actually experiencing Trump’s weak economy."
Federal data released Friday shows the US economy shed 23,000 jobs last month, but one analyst said that figure was "only the beginning of the bad news" for the country's job market under the leadership of President Donald Trump.
"This is a bleak jobs report," said Heather Long, the chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noting that the unemployment rate fell slightly in July—but primarily because more people left the labor force—and year-over-year hourly wage growth slowed to 3.2%, not keeping up with inflation.
Breyon Williams, the Groundwork Collaborative's top economist, said in response to the new Labor Department numbers that "regardless of having a job or not, everyone is paying high prices from Trump’s chaotic tariffs and war with Iran."
"Today’s report shows a patchwork economy that is fraying at the seams," said Williams. "Trump’s economic mismanagement has injected so much uncertainty into the economy that employers are not confident enough to add more people, but also have not initiated massive layoffs, creating a frozen job market where those with jobs are afraid to leave them and those without are stuck on the sidelines."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote on social media that "Trump is tanking the US economy."
In addition to the loss of 23,000 jobs last month—far worse than forecasters' expectation of an increase of 80,000 jobs—the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revised job growth downward for both May and June. BLS said job growth in May was actually 20,000 (down from the earlier estimate of 57,000), and job growth in June was 63,000 (down from 129,000). The healthcare sector has accounted for a disproportionate share of US employment growth this year.
"This economy is running on fumes," said Angela Hanks, a former Labor Department official who now works as chief of policy programs at The Century Foundation. "However the White House tries to spin these numbers, their talking points ring hollow for people who are actually experiencing Trump’s weak economy."
White House spin efforts began almost immediately after the release of the new figures.
Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, claimed during a Fox Business appearance that the dismal job numbers were a testament to the success of Trump's mass deportation campaign, even though the largest job losses in July occurred in state and local government.
"Because we have a tight border and because we've been deporting folks who aren't citizens, then that puts downward pressure on what the sort of breakeven job number is," said Hassett.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Hassett also blamed the "end of the World Cup," which "meant that a lot of hospitality workers were then laid off."
Kevin Hassett thinks Americans are very very stupid. This spin is ridiculous, transparent BS. pic.twitter.com/h0qX7c8fbI
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 7, 2026
"Is this the ‘Golden Age’ that Donald Trump and JD Vance keep talking about?" asked Kendall Witmer, the Democratic National Committee's rapid response director, following publication of the BLS report. "Trump’s disastrous economic agenda has caused irreparable damage to the job market, as layoffs mount and it’s nearly impossible to find a job."
"Working families are already drowning under the weight of skyrocketing costs on everyday goods like groceries, gas, and healthcare, and their paychecks aren’t keeping up," said Witmer. "Americans are barely keeping their heads above water—and Trump can’t even be bothered to care."
One group noted "the irony of a billionaire being in charge of collecting pennies from debtors."
The US Education Department confirmed Monday that, starting next month, it will resume seizing the pay of student loan borrowers in default as the Trump administration wages a broader war on debt relief and cancellation efforts.
The department, led by billionaire Linda McMahon—who is working to gut the agency from the inside—told the Washington Post that "it will notify about 1,000 defaulted borrowers of plans to withhold a portion of their wages to pay down their past-due debt," beginning the week of January 7, 2026.
"After that, the department said, notices will be sent to larger numbers of borrowers each month," the Post reported. "There were about 5.3 million borrowers who had not made a payment on their federal student loans for at least 360 days as of June 30, according to the latest available data from the Education Department. Many of them were in default before the federal government stopped collecting defaulted loans because of the pandemic nearly six years ago."
Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel of the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, said in a statement Tuesday that "at a time when families across the country are struggling with stagnant wages and an affordability crisis, this administration's decision to garnish wages from defaulted student loan borrowers is cruel, unnecessary, and irresponsible."
"As millions of borrowers sit on the precipice of default, this administration is using its self-inflicted limited resources to seize borrowers' wages instead of defending borrowers' right to affordable payments," said Yu. "There are still nearly a million unprocessed Income-Driven Repayment applications, and this administration has admitted to denying en masse borrowers who applied and requested the US Department of Education’s help in accessing the most affordable payment option."
“Finally, during the last Trump administration, hundreds of thousands had their wages improperly taken at the peak of the pandemic because the US Department of Education was unable to control this tool," Yu added. "It is irresponsible to turn on a debt collection tool that the administration cannot turn off."
In May, the Trump administration ended a pause on student loan repayments that had been in place since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
The administration has also attacked student debt relief efforts launched under former President Joe Biden. Earlier this month, the Trump Education Department cut a deal to effectively end the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, jacking up monthly payments for millions of borrowers enrolled in the Biden-era program.
"While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis—as the rising costs of groceries, utilities and healthcare continue to bury families in debt—billionaire Education Secretary Linda McMahon chose to strike a backroom deal with a right-wing state attorney general and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head," Yu said in a statement after the deal was announced.
"The real story here," Yu added, "is the unrelenting, right-wing push to jack up costs on working people with student debt."
"The federal government also wields vast extrajudicial powers to collect student debt, including garnishing wages and seizing Social Security payments."
The Education Department is legally allowed to withhold up to 15% of a borrower's after-tax income to pay down defaulted debt. As the Post noted, the Trump administration has already resumed seizing tax refunds and Social Security benefits student loan borrowers in default.
The Debt Collective, the first debtors' union in the US, noted "the irony of a billionaire being in charge of collecting pennies from debtors."
"The Department of Education pushes debtors toward payment to get out of default," the group added. "They don’t want you to know that you have other options. These include traditional repayment options, nonpayment options, and lesser-known options."
The Trump administration's decision to resume garnishing borrowers' wages comes as advocates are warning of a "default cliff" as borrowers struggle to afford basic necessities, leaving them unable to keep up with loan repayments. A Data for Progress survey released earlier this month found that more than 40% of borrowers report making tradeoffs between covering basic needs and staying current on student loan debt payments."
"Student loan default comes with severe and punitive consequences," Michele Zampini, associate vice president of federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access and Success, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.
"In addition to ongoing credit score damage and hefty collection fees, the federal government also wields vast extrajudicial powers to collect student debt, including garnishing wages and seizing Social Security payments and tax refunds that are targeted to households with very low incomes, including the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit," Zampini added. "These seizures compound financial hardship for those who can least afford it."
"It seems to me like we are looking at a labor market with near-zero labor force growth and near-zero real wage growth," wrote economist Dean Baker. "This means that real labor income in the economy is essentially flat."
Even without the benefit of recent federal jobs data, which the Trump administration has withheld amid the government shutdown, a prominent US economist argued Wednesday that it's clear the labor market under Donald Trump's leadership is increasingly grim.
Citing private figures that have been used to fill the void left by two consecutive missed jobs reports from the federal government, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research argued that "we can infer" weak job growth in September and suggested Trump or his aides "likely reviewed the September data and made a decision not to release it."
More broadly, Baker wrote, the payroll firm ADP "shows average private sector job growth of just 10,000 a month for the three months from July to October. Since this excludes the government sector, which likely shed jobs over this period due to federal layoffs (even pre-shutdown), the ADP data imply essentially zero job growth over this period."
"The other part of the story is that wage growth also seems to have slowed especially for workers at the bottom end of the wage distribution," Baker added. "It looks to me like we are looking at a labor market with near-zero labor force growth and near-zero real wage growth. This means that real labor income in the economy is essentially flat."
"That is not a pretty picture from the standpoint of the bulk of the population, and it does not describe a very stable path of economic growth," he continued. "When the AI bubble bursts, things might get really ugly really fast."
Baker's assessment came as CNN reported that President Donald Trump considered "traveling the country to give economy-focused speeches" as consumer sentiment craters, tariffs drive up prices, millions face skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and people across the country reel from the administration's assault on safety net programs.
Publicly, Trump has dismissed the notion that people are struggling economically under his administration, calling polling to that effect "fake."
"The economy's the strongest it's ever been," Trump falsely declared during a recent Fox News interview.
On Tuesday, the White House was widely mocked for citing extremely limited data from the food delivery company DoorDash to proclaim that Trump's agenda is "delivering real results for American families."
They’ve laid off so many people that the government is now getting its economic data from DoorDash.
[image or embed]
— Dare Obasanjo (@carnage4life.bsky.social) Nov 11, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Economist Paul Krugman wrote in a blog post on Wednesday that Trump is beginning to face "backlash against his attempts to gaslight the public about the true state of the economy," pointing to "the blowout Democratic victories in last week’s elections" as just part of that backlash.
"Once again, these attempts aren’t about putting a positive spin on the data. They’re just flat-out lies," Krugman wrote. "And Democrats should hammer those lies as proof not just that Trump is utterly dishonest, but that he’s completely out of touch with the reality of American life."
Amid intensifying tariffs, just 30% of Americans say they can afford the cost of living, according to a poll from Data for Progress.
The White House says the U.S. is in the midst of an "economic boom" under President Donald Trump. But voters aren't feeling it in their wallets.
Polling released by Gallup Thursday found the president's approval rating at just 37%, the lowest point of his second term so far, with an all-time low approval rating of 29% among independents.
This precipitous decline has been helped along by sagging approval on the economy, which has historically been the issue where he gets the most support. After a high of 42% in February, approval for his handling of the economy is likewise down to just 37%.
An uptick in inflation seen over the past month has exacerbated the cost of living crisis Trump promised to abate on the campaign trail.
A poll released Friday by Data for Progress found that, "Only 30% of likely voters report having enough income to be able to comfortably provide for their household's needs, while a plurality of voters (43%) say they have enough income but money is tight, and 20% say they do not make enough to provide for all household members' needs."

"As his approval tanks, President Trump has finally lost voters on the one issue where they've historically trusted him: the economy," said Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative. "Not only has Trump shirked his promise to lower prices, he's made the situation substantially worse as his tax and tariff policies have landed a double blow to household budgets."
According to data from Indeed, cited by Forbes, 43% of Americans have seen their wages lagging behind the cost of living over the past year. The jobs feeling the worst crunch are those "at the low-to-middle end of the pay spectrum."
Trump has imposed the highest tariffs on imported goods since the Great Depression. After months of relative quiet, they began to make their impact felt this past month, with consumer prices up 2.7% from the previous year, compared with just 2.4% in May.
While rising rent costs were the top driver of inflation in June, prices for clothing, toys, and consumer appliances all rose, as did food and energy.
The president was elected on promises to tackle the cost of living. But now 70% say that he is not focused enough on lowering prices, according to polling released Sunday by CBS News. Meanwhile, 61% say Trump is focusing too much on his tariff policy, which remains broadly unpopular.
Yale's Budget Lab estimates that it would cost the average household $2,770 worth of disposable income per year if tariffs stayed at their current rate indefinitely, with the worst impact—especially in the short term—on the poorest Americans.

But they are set to grow more intense beginning on August 1, when Trump has said he'll roll out new levies on imports from some of America's top trading partners, including Canada, the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, and South Korea.
According to economists who spoke with Vox, the worst effects are likely yet to come. Preston Caldwell, chief U.S. economist for Morningstar, said inflation would likely peak in 2026 rather than 2025.
"Companies have started paying tariffs on their imported goods, but as far as the goods that are being sold in stores right now, those are primarily being drawn from the inventory of goods that were brought in before the tariffs," Caldwell said. "So most companies are still not really having to recognize the loss of tariffs yet to a great degree."
"The more that it becomes clear that tariffs are here for at least the foreseeable future," he continued, "the more that they are going to have to eventually adjust to this new reality, which will entail increasing their prices."
Owens said that will likely translate to even fiercer backlash against Trump.
"Working families," she said, "know exactly who to blame as they pay higher prices on everything from groceries and electricity bills to school supplies and appliances."
"They're showing their true colors as an anti-worker administration," Andrew Stettner of the Century Foundation told Common Dreams.
In what has been described as a "barrage of attacks on workers," the U.S. Department of Labor under President Donald Trump is planning to overhaul dozens of rules that protect workers from exploitation and wage theft.
The administration announced this month that it planned to change over 60 regulations it deems "unnecessary" burdens to businesses and economic growth.
According to an analysis released Tuesday by labor policy experts at the Century Foundation—senior fellows Julie Su and Rachel West and director of economy and jobs Andrew Stettner—most of the changes "reverse critical standards that ensure workers get a just day's pay and come home healthy and safe."
In one of the most sweeping changes, the department plans to reverse a 2013 rule that extended minimum wage and overtime protections to home healthcare workers.
These workers, who care for elderly and other medically frail individuals, already make less than $17 an hour on average.
Stettner told Common Dreams that the changes will "suppress wages" and allow agencies to "put the screws on workers to work 50- or 60-hour weeks."
The Trump administration is also rolling back a Biden-era rule that banned bosses from paying subminimum wages to disabled employees.
This discriminatory practice has been on the wane due to state-level bans in 15 states. But in the absence of a federal ban, nearly 40,000 employees—most of whom have intellectual disabilities—still received less than the federal minimum wage as of 2024.
The Century Foundation report says that by ending the rule, the Trump administration would be once again "relegating workers with disabilities to jobs that pay as little as pennies per hour."
The department is also taking a hatchet to workers' rights and safety. Another major change it proposed would do away with protections for seasonal migrant farmworkers under the H-2A visa program who raise complaints about wage and hour violations.
It was commonplace for farm owners to take advantage of these seasonal employees, whose legal status was tied to their work, and who therefore risked deportation if they lost their jobs.
Cases of exploitation, however, declined to an all-time low after the Biden administration introduced the rule, which banned employers from firing, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against workers who attempted to participate in collective bargaining.
"These reforms protected the rights of farmworkers in the H-2A program to speak out individually and collectively against mistreatment and prevented employers from arbitrarily firing them from their jobs," the report says.
The department also proposed weakening the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) general duty clause, which allows businesses to be punished for putting their employees in dangerous situations. The proposed change would exempt many jobs that are deemed "inherently risky" from protection.
The administration described it as a way to prevent OSHA from cracking down on workplace injuries among athletes and stuntmen.
However, Stettner suggested that the broad language could allow the administration to go much further in defining what is considered "inherently risky." The report notes that the administration is "crowdsourcing" suggestions from employers about what other occupations to exempt.
"The employer community, they're jumping onto this," Stettner said. "They're telling their members to write in to the Department of Labor about other inherently dangerous occupations they should except from the general duty clause."
The authors pointed out that the administration has previously rolled back restrictions meant to protect workers from heat-related stress on the job, which results in more than 600 deaths and over 25,000 injuries each year.
As the administration pushes to expand coal mining, it is also weakening protections for the miners themselves. After laying off most of the employees at OSHA's research arm—which monitors cases of black lung disease—earlier this year, it is now weakening safety requirements to prevent roof falls, mine explosions, and exposure to toxic silica.
"The DOL's role should be to protect the most vulnerable workers: farmworkers, people with disabilities, people that have suffered discrimination," Stettner said. "They're showing their true colors as an anti-worker administration."
"They have money for penthouse views and pet projects, just not for their frontline workers. Enough is enough," said the national president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
Hundreds of engineers and trainees who work for New Jersey's public transportation system went on strike early Friday, according to the union that represents the NJ Transit workers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
The strike, the first by NJ Transit workers since 1983, comes as contract negotiations have dragged out for over five years, according to the New Jersey Monitor. Wages are the key sticking point between the unionized workers and NJ Transit, which is state-owned.
The strike is poised to disrupt the commutes of some 100,000 daily rail riders, many of whom are traveling to and from Manhattan.
Thomas Haas, general chairman for the NJ Transit engineers union, said on Wednesday night before the NJ Transit board that "we, the locomotive engineers of NJ Transit are asking only for a fair and competitive wage," according to CNN.
"The last thing we want to see is that [service] to be interrupted. But we're at the end of our rope," Haas said.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) officials reached a tentative deal with NJ Transit in March, but the union's some 450 rank-and-file workers voted down the agreement, saying that it didn't include a large enough pay increase, according to Gothamist. The rejected deal teed up Friday's strike.
The rejected deal from November would have raised wages, but the union has said its members are seeking wage parity with those who work for nearby commuter rails, like the Long Island Rail Road.
"NJ Transit has a half-billion dollars for a swanky new headquarters and $53 million for decorating the interior of that unnecessary building. They gave away $20 million in revenue during a fare holiday last year," said BLET national president Mark Wallace in a statement on Thursday. "They have money for penthouse views and pet projects, just not for their frontline workers. Enough is enough. We will stay out until our members receive the fair pay that they deserve."
The union announced that picket locations have been set up, including at New York City's Penn Station.
"I have always said that any deal we reach would have to be fair to our engineers and fiscally responsible without burdening our riders or the taxpayers of New Jersey," said NJ Transit president and CEO Kris Kolluri on Thursday.
"This strike will upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans," said Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy. "The path to a new contract will be paved at the negotiating table, not the picket line."
Railroads are subject to the Railway Labor Act, which means that even if members of a union reject a deal, the federal government can force both sides to accept a deal and order workers back to work. This happened in 2022, when then-President Joe Biden signed legislation averting a rail strike and forcing freight rail workers to accept a deal that multiple unions had rejected.