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.
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."
(Graphic: Data for Progress)
"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.
(Graphic: Yale Budget Lab)
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 "unecessary" 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.