After two uncharacteristic years of decline in 2022 and 2023, the pay for chief executive officers (CEOs) of the 350 largest firms in the U.S. increased in 2024. As of the latest data available, realized compensation—which captures what CEOs took home in pay after any stock-based compensation was sold—averaged nearly 23 million dollars in 2024 at the 350 largest publicly traded firms, an increase of 5.9% since 2023.

EPI’s new CEO pay data page details the latest information on CEO pay, the sources of CEO pay, and how CEO pay compares with what typical workers are paid, the stock market, and the pay of other highly paid workers. The new web page also provides historical data on each measure as far back as 1965.Read more

The Trump administration inherited a strong labor market that delivered historic gains for Hispanic workers. Between 2019 and 2024, prime-age Hispanic workers experienced record-high employment rates while Hispanic workers overall saw their real wages grow faster than in the preceding four decades.

Although job growth began to wane in the second half of 2024, the current administration’s economic mismanagement has led to a significant slowdown in job growth this summer. The most recent jobs report confirmed that the economy actually lost jobs in June 2025, and job growth for August was much weaker than anticipated.

Despite all this chaos and uncertainty, Hispanic workers have managed to hold on to their previous job market gains. This resilience is largely a story about employment growth among Latinas. But there are growing signs that these workers and their families remain vulnerable to economic hardship as the current administration attacks immigrants, basic needs programs, and common-sense economics.

Read more

For the last five years, I’ve given the same answer in response to questions about any one-month increase in the Black unemployment rate. Given the relatively small sample size used to calculate the number each month, we shouldn’t make too much of a single month’s increase but focus on longer-term patterns and see if the upward trend continues over the next few months. Well, as of August 2025, the Black unemployment rate has risen for three consecutive months and now stands at 7.5%. This post details three major conclusions I have drawn from this and supporting data:

1. There has been a clear deterioration in the labor market for Black workers this year: the unemployment rate is rising and employment is falling.
2. The decline in Black workers’ employment appears to be concentrated among Black women while Black men’s employment rates appear more stable.
3. Since January 2025, overall women’s employment has fallen most in professional and business services, manufacturing, and federal government—suggesting likely culprits for the decline in Black women’s employment.

Read more

Below is an abstract of a WorldatWork member-only article at The Journal of Total Rewards. You can learn more about the productivity-pay gap here. 

This paper focuses on the historical divergence between typical workers’ compensation and economy-wide productivity, and the implications of this divergence for workplace inequality. Commonly referred to as the “pay-productivity gap”, we show that while inflation-adjusted pay and productivity grew in lock step from the end of WWII until the 1970s, productivity has outpaced pay since 1979. We use publicly available data sources to document this gap and discuss key methodological considerations.

We argue that the equal growth in pay and productivity before 1979 and the subsequent fracturing were driven near-entirely by intentional policy decisions. Beginning in 1979, the efforts by employers and capital-owners to undercut the bargaining power of typical workers in labor markets through policies such as deregulation, corporate-led globalization, erosion of the minimum wage, deunionization, macroeconomic policies that tolerated excess unemployment, and tax cuts for high earners led to a divergence in pay and productivity that has yet to be remedied. Not only have these intentional policy decisions created a large pay-productivity gap since 1979, but they have also coincided with a productivity slow-down across the total economy during this time period, resulting in growth that was slower and less equal.

Productivity-Pay Gap

The gap between productivity and a typical worker’s compensation has increased dramatically since 1979: Productivity growth and hourly compensation growth, 1948–2025

Year	Productivity	Pay
1948q1	100	100
1948q2	101.2	100.8
1948q3	100.8	100.8
1948q4	102.7	103.1
1949q1	102.2	105.4
1949q2	101.3	106.6
1949q3	104.7	109
1949q4	104.7	110.3
1950q1	108.9	111.8
1950q2	110.1	112.4
1950q3	112.1	111.7
1950q4	112.9	112.1
1951q1	111.5	110.2
1951q2	111.6	111.2
1951q3	114.4	113.5
1951q4	114.3	113.7
1952q1	114.3	114.4
1952q2	114.9	115.8
1952q3	115.3	115.8
1952q4	117.5	117.3
1953q1	119.9	119.6
1953q2	120.5	120.6
1953q3	120.2	121.8
1953q4	119.7	122.6
1954q1	120.3	123.7
1954q2	121.8	124.5
1954q3	123.7	125.3
1954q4	126.8	127.8
1955q1	128.8	128.4
1955q2	131.2	130.2
1955q3	131.3	130.6
1955q4	131.8	132.3
1956q1	132.4	134.2
1956q2	132.3	134.5
1956q3	132.3	134.8
1956q4	134.3	135.8
1957q1	135.9	136.4
1957q2	136	137.5
1957q3	136.4	137.9
1957q4	136.5	138.5
1958q1	135	137.5
1958q2	136.3	138
1958q3	139.6	138.8
1958q4	141.9	140
1959q1	143.4	142
1959q2	144.2	143
1959q3	144.5	142.8
1959q4	144.5	143.3
1960q1	148	144.3
1960q2	145.9	145.6
1960q3	146.2	146.2
1960q4	144.9	146.5
1961q1	146.6	147.6
1961q2	151.1	148.4
1961q3	152.8	148.5
1961q4	153.8	149.1
1962q1	155.7	151
1962q2	155.6	151.6
1962q3	157.4	152.3
1962q4	158.9	153.3
1963q1	160.7	154.7
1963q2	161.8	155.8
1963q3	163.8	155.3
1963q4	165.4	157.2
1964q1	167.4	158
1964q2	167	158.6
1964q3	169.6	160.3
1964q4	168.7	160.4
1965q1	171.1	161.6
1965q2	171.4	162.4
1965q3	175	163.1
1965q4	178.5	164.8
1966q1	179.3	165.1
1966q2	178.2	165.4
1966q3	178.7	165.6
1966q4	179.4	165.7
1967q1	180.1	166.8
1967q2	181.7	168.5
1967q3	181.5	168.7
1967q4	182.3	169.2
1968q1	186.3	170.6
1968q2	187.6	171.1
1968q3	187.9	172.2
1968q4	188	172.9
1969q1	189.7	175.1
1969q2	188.8	175.1
1969q3	190.4	176.2
1969q4	189.6	177.2
1970q1	190.1	176.4
1970q2	191.9	176.8
1970q3	195.3	178.6
1970q4	193.9	178.9
1971q1	200	181.1
1971q2	200.8	182.1
1971q3	203.2	183.5
1971q4	202.6	184.9
1972q1	204.7	189.6
1972q2	209.2	191.6
1972q3	211	193.1
1972q4	213.7	193.9
1973q1	214.8	193.8
1973q2	213.8	192.1
1973q3	211.4	191.6
1973q4	211.8	189.9
1974q1	207.3	188.1
1974q2	207.8	187.6
1974q3	206	187.5
1974q4	207	186.6
1975q1	209.3	186.9
1975q2	212.2	187.5
1975q3	214.3	186.9
1975q4	214.7	186.6
1976q1	216.6	187.3
1976q2	218.1	188.7
1976q3	218.1	189.9
1976q4	218.6	190.7
1977q1	219.4	191.5
1977q2	218.6	191.8
1977q3	221.1	193.1
1977q4	220.3	193.5
1978q1	219.5	195
1978q2	222.7	195
1978q3	222.5	194.8
1978q4	224	195.4
1979q1	221.7	195.1
1979q2	220.7	193
1979q3	218.9	192.2
1979q4	216.8	190.7
1980q1	215.7	188.3
1980q2	212.9	188.2
1980q3	212.8	187.9
1980q4	214.7	187.7
1981q1	217.9	186.8
1981q2	216.8	187.3
1981q3	219.2	187.2
1981q4	216	186.5
1982q1	215.4	187.3
1982q2	215.1	187.8
1982q3	214.9	187.5
1982q4	215.9	187.1
1983q1	218.7	189.2
1983q2	221.7	188.9
1983q3	223	188.6
1983q4	225.2	188.5
1984q1	225.5	188
1984q2	226.9	187.7
1984q3	228.2	187.6
1984q4	228.7	187.4
1985q1	229.9	187.2
1985q2	229.9	187.3
1985q3	232.5	187.6
1985q4	232.3	187.2
1986q1	234.2	187.4
1986q2	237.1	189.4
1986q3	237.9	189.4
1986q4	236.7	189.3
1987q1	234.5	187.8
1987q2	235.2	187
1987q3	235.1	186.4
1987q4	237	186.4
1988q1	237.6	186.3
1988q2	238	186.4
1988q3	239	186.1
1988q4	239.6	186.7
1989q1	239.7	186.8
1989q2	239.8	186
1989q3	240.8	186.6
1989q4	240.4	187.1
1990q1	241.6	186.8
1990q2	243.5	186.6
1990q3	241.7	184.9
1990q4	237.7	183.8
1991q1	238.9	184.5
1991q2	242.7	185.7
1991q3	244.3	186.2
1991q4	245.1	186.4
1992q1	249	186.7
1992q2	250.9	187.4
1992q3	253.5	187.7
1992q4	254.6	187
1993q1	253.4	188.3
1993q2	252	187.5
1993q3	252.8	187.7
1993q4	254.5	187.8
1994q1	255.6	188.8
1994q2	255.1	188.2
1994q3	253.8	188
1994q4	256.3	188.2
1995q1	255	187.5
1995q2	255	187.2
1995q3	255	187.5
1995q4	256.8	187.8
1996q1	258.3	187.6
1996q2	259.1	187.5
1996q3	259	188.1
1996q4	258.9	187.9
1997q1	259.3	188.3
1997q2	262.2	189.4
1997q3	264.4	190.4
1997q4	264.9	191.6
1998q1	265.7	192.9
1998q2	266.3	194.3
1998q3	269.5	195
1998q4	270.9	195.8
1999q1	273.8	196.9
1999q2	272.4	197.2
1999q3	273.8	197.7
1999q4	276.3	198
2000q1	273.2	196.9
2000q2	277.9	198.1
2000q3	277.8	198.4
2000q4	280.7	200
2001q1	278.4	200.4
2001q2	281.7	201.6
2001q3	282.2	202.9
2001q4	285.8	205
2002q1	290.7	206.3
2002q2	290.5	206.3
2002q3	292	207.5
2002q4	292.4	209.1
2003q1	294.2	209.2
2003q2	299.9	210.6
2003q3	304	210.4
2003q4	307.3	210
2004q1	307.3	210
2004q2	309.9	209.8
2004q3	311.6	210
2004q4	312.8	209.3
2005q1	316.2	210.2
2005q2	316.7	210.5
2005q3	315.9	209.1
2005q4	316.7	209
2006q1	319.1	209.6
2006q2	318.4	210.1
2006q3	316.6	210
2006q4	319.8	212.6
2007q1	321.4	212.5
2007q2	321.3	212.9
2007q3	323.2	213.7
2007q4	322.7	212.7
2008q1	319.2	212.6
2008q2	319.3	212.2
2008q3	316.9	211
2008q4	321.9	217.6
2009q1	327.4	222.4
2009q2	331.1	222.5
2009q3	333.7	222.1
2009q4	337.1	222.1
2010q1	338.7	224
2010q2	340.6	224.9
2010q3	344.6	225.2
2010q4	344.7	224.8
2011q1	341	223.7
2011q2	339.1	222.1
2011q3	338.2	221.3
2011q4	338.6	221.4
2012q1	340.1	219.9
2012q2	341.9	220.4
2012q3	339.9	220.6
2012q4	339.6	219.8
2013q1	342.4	221.4
2013q2	343.5	223.1
2013q3	344.8	223.5
2013q4	347	224
2014q1	344.2	223.7
2014q2	345.9	223.5
2014q3	349	223.9
2014q4	348.5	225.2
2015q1	352.1	228.1
2015q2	353.7	227.8
2015q3	354.7	228.2
2015q4	353.6	229.9
2016q1	354.6	231.5
2016q2	354.4	231.1
2016q3	355.4	231.5
2016q4	357.9	231.4
2017q1	357.8	231.2
2017q2	357.9	232.4
2017q3	361.4	233.2
2017q4	362.7	232.8
2018q1	364	233.2
2018q2	364.5	234.1
2018q3	365.5	235.2
2018q4	365.2	236.7
2019q1	367.3	237.7
2019q2	368.8	238.3
2019q3	372.1	239.6
2019q4	374.1	240
2020q1	372.7	241
2020q2	385.7	253.7
2020q3	392.3	248.2
2020q4	389.5	248.1
2021q1	394.1	248.5
2021q2	394.9	247.5
2021q3	393.9	247.4
2021q4	395	246
2022q1	390.9	244.3
2022q2	388.3	241.9
2022q3	387.4	241.6
2022q4	389.8	242.5
2023q1	390.7	243.5
2023q2	391.7	245
2023q3	396.2	245.8
2023q4	397.8	247.1
2024q1	399.4	247.3
2024q2	401.2	248.3
2024q3	403.1	250.6
2024q4	404.6	251.3
2025q1	402.9	251.7
2025q2	406.1	253

 

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

The data underlying the figure.

Notes: Data are for compensation (wages and benefits) of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and net productivity of the total economy. “Net productivity” is the growth of output of goods and services less depreciation per hour worked.

Source: EPI analysis of unpublished Total Economy Productivity data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Labor Productivity and Costs program, wage data from the BLS Current Employment Statistics, BLS Employment Cost Trends, BLS Consumer Price Index, and Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts.

Share on Facebook Tweet this chart

Embed

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

<iframe width="100%" height="460" src="https://www.epi.org?p=235212&view=embed&embed_template=charts_v2013_08_21&embed_date=20251113&onp=310903&utm_source=epi_press&utm_medium=chart_embed&utm_campaign=charts_v2" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Download image

Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked increased awareness and adoption of AI tools in the workplace. While AI systems and tools have been used in the workplace for decades, this acceleration in capabilities and greater public attention have motivated more concerted and urgent policy efforts, including a focus on protecting and empowering workers. During the Biden-Harris administration, leadership and agencies across the federal government acted to better understand the potential implications of AI for workers and to protect workers from risks to their livelihoods and rights. 

The Database of Biden Administration Actions on AI — a joint project from EPI and Workshop — can serve as a resource for state, local, and federal efforts to tackle these challenges and opportunities.

Biden-Harris administration actions to protect workers and the public

In October 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights to help guide the design, development, and deployment of AI and other automated systems. This document outlines protections that should be guaranteed and served as a guiding resource by affirming the values that must be front and center when undertaking policymaking on AI. 

A few months later, OpenAI released ChatGPT, which spurred an increased sense of urgency for this work. President Biden’s October 2023 executive order (EO) on “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI” was—at the time—the most significant government action globally on AI safety, security, and trust. The EO highlighted a commitment to supporting U.S. workers and directed a number of related agency actions, including the Department of Labor’s (DOL) principles and best practices for developers and employers, which provide a roadmap for responsible use of AI in the workplace. 

From the start of Biden’s administration, federal agency leaders were clear that existing laws and regulations ensure rights and protections related to AI, and that agencies would play an active role in regulation and enforcement. Agency actions included:

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an initiative on AI and algorithmic fairness, and shared tips for workers focused on disability discrimination and the use of software. 
• DOL issued a guide for federal contractors on AI and equal employment opportunity—which included a set of promising practices for employers—and addressed AI in other regulations and guidance, including the Good Jobs Principles; rulemaking on independent contractors; and guidance on the use of AI and automated systems and federal labor standards. 
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released guidance to protect workers from surveillance and decision-making that violates Fair Credit Reporting Act rules. 
• The National Labor Relations Board issued guidance focused on unlawful surveillance which could interfere with employees’ ability to engage in collective bargaining and other protected activities. 
• The Federal Trade Commission addressed harmful commercial surveillance by major companies and brought to light the collection and monetization of personal data and the use of corporate surveillance pricing software. 

Trump administration and a new federal landscape

Immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration rescinded President Biden’s executive order on AI and issued a new executive order requiring an immediate review of all actions taken under the previous administration’s executive order. Relevant documents have already been removed from public websites, and many worker protective actions have already been rolled back, along with ongoing cuts decimating many of these agencies. 

In a speech at the February 2025 Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President Vance decried excessive regulation of AI domestically and internationally. He also said the Trump administration would “maintain a pro-worker growth path for AI,” but did not provide any policy specifics. The White House and many in Congress also backed a measure in the Republican budget mega bill that would have imposed a 10-year moratorium on any meaningful regulation of AI at the state and local levels, to supposedly avoid hindering tech innovation. While this measure fortunately failed to pass in the final version of the legislation in July 2025, the enthusiasm for ramming it through is a worrying sign of the administration’s priorities, particularly for worker advocates seeking to make meaningful change at the state and local levels.

In July 2025, the White House released its AI Action Plan, which continues to emphasize stripping protections from the public. While the plan purports to focus on empowering workers, the actions it outlines do not address workplace rights, surveillance and privacy, or algorithmic discrimination. Further, the Action Plan’s focus on the importance of deregulation as a prerequisite for AI advancement suggests that worker protections will be put aside. Instead of putting forth a real vision for worker empowerment, the plan suggests that unfunded actions around the edges can make a meaningful difference in worker opportunities and outcomes. 

Looking forward

In this new landscape, the tech industry has been emboldened and is increasing lobbying at the state level in addition to its efforts at the White House and in Congress to undo and prevent meaningful protections related to AI. The combined power, collaboration, and messaging of labor, civil rights, consumer protection, and community groups will be critical. 

A broad and ambitious vision for responsible AI governance is essential at a time when protections are under attack and AI-related risks are more pressing than ever. The Biden-Harris administration began to tackle many questions about the implications and opportunities for workers of advances in AI and automated systems. But this was just a first step and much of the progress at the federal level is now being undone. The vast resources, guidance documents, and innovative enforcement actions can and should be a model to augment existing state, local, and federal efforts to protect and empower workers in an age of rapid AI development and adoption. 

The coauthors are both Fellows at Workshop, an organization that leverages expertise in policy and partnerships across the federal government, advocacy, and organizing to protect and advance workers’ rights.

U.S. Census data released this week showed that national median household income held strong in 2024. However, income growth was uneven and regional poverty disparities persisted.

Today, the Census Bureau released 2024 state-level income and poverty data from the American Community Survey (ACS). Although these data come from a different survey than the national income and poverty data, the overall trends are similar, with a range of outcomes across states.

Importantly, these data describe trends for 2024 and tell us nothing about economic conditions this year, in which Trump administration actions—chaotic tariffs, mass deportations, attacks on federal employees—have weakened the labor market, put upward pressure on prices, and threatened to undo recent progress of historically high wage growth and declining inequality.

State-level changes in household income

Between 2023 and 2024, U.S. median household income rose 2.0% to $81,604.1 Median household income varied significantly by state, from a low of $59,127 in Mississippi to $109,707 in the District of Columbia in 2024. Compared with 2023, median household incomes saw the largest decline in Rhode Island (–4.5%) and the largest increase in Alaska (7.3%). Twenty-nine states had a statistically significant increase in median income while the remaining 21 states and D.C. had no measurable year-over-year change in household income, positive or negative.

Read more

Below, EPI economists offer their insights on today’s release of U.S. Census Bureau data for 2024 on annual earnings, income, poverty, and health insurance.

Read more

Today’s preliminary benchmark announcement from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reveals weaker job growth between March 2024 and March 2025 than when it was first reported based on survey data. These numbers are likely to anger President Trump and the White House who incorrectly view revised data as political manipulation. Trump has already lashed out at BLS, including firing the agency’s commissioner because a jobs report showed a rapidly weakening labor market. But these BLS data revisions are not corrections of mistakes. Revisions are part of the regular, transparent process to update employment counts with the most comprehensive data possible.

In today’s release, BLS provided preliminary estimates—during which no data will actually be revised—as a window into its eventual benchmark revisions that will be implemented in the beginning of 2026. According to the data, average monthly job growth between March 2024 and March 2025 may have been only half the pace that was initially estimated, about 70,600 jobs per month rather than 146,500. These preliminary estimates are consistent with other signs of slowing job growth in late 2024 and the beginning of 2025. The bulk of these revisions reflect 2024 data—in fact, despite the predictable angst they will generate from the White House, today’s revisions tell us very little about the state of Trump’s economy since he wasn’t president in 2024.

Instead, the preliminary benchmark revisions released this morning are simply part of regular BLS communication regarding the best available employment data. Monthly payroll employment estimates are based on a large sample with a fast turnaround; data are regularly updated for two subsequent months as new survey results come in, and then the data are revised again annually in February to reflect administrative records, which are comprehensive but less timely.

Any political retaliation due to today’s release will harm the ability for BLS to provide timely and unbiased statistics, either because the Trump administration is intending to undermine data integrity, or because political attacks on the dedicated public servants at BLS limit their ability to collect, process, and release these statistics. The latest economic data—which are wholly unaffected by today’s preliminary revisions—suggest the labor market is weakening for all workers. Job growth has been especially weak since May. Household survey rates also point to falling prime-age Black employment and higher unemployment for U.S.-born workers. Punishing the messenger will only further damage the federal data infrastructure and cloud our ability to understand the state of the economy.

Read more

Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 22,000 jobs added in August. 

The labor market continues to soften, according to the latest #JobsReport out this morning from the BLS. Payroll employment grew only 22,000 in August and revisions now show employment losses for June (-13,000). Over the last three months, job growth has slowed to just 29,000 on average.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 7:41 AM

Job losses were particularly acute in professional/business services, the federal govt, and wholesale trade, but there have also been sustained losses over recent months in manufacturing, construction, and mining, an indication that Trump’s blue-collar renaissance is clearly not happening.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 7:59 AM

Federal cuts continue to cost jobs as federal employment fell another 15k in August. Federal employment is now down 97k since January. The full extent of the federal job losses won’t be seen until we get data for October after thousands more leave federal payrolls on September 30.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:11 AM

Lest anyone tells you otherwise, the monthly revisions that led to a fall in employment for June are part of the normal #JobsDay process as BLS receives additional reports from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:24 AM

The household survey also provides useful information about labor market health. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.3%, it’s highest since 2021. While a more volatile series, the data show sustained increases in Black unemployment over the last three months, hitting 7.5% in August.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:46 AM

The unemployment rate for young workers (16-24) also continued to increase with the latest data. Again, it’s a notably volatile series because of small sample sizes, but it’s now up just over a percentage point since March. A weak hires rate can make it harder for new entrants to find jobs.
#EconSky

[image or embed]

— Elise Gould (@elisegould.bsky.social) Sep 5, 2025 at 8:55 AM

The U.S. labor market continued to expand in 2024, but at a slower pace than the prior two years. Job growth remained fast enough to largely keep pace with population growth and wages rose faster than inflation. Upcoming Census Bureau data for 2024—set to be released on Tuesday—will reflect how these factors and others impacted annual earnings, income, poverty, and health insurance for workers, families, and children across the country.  

It’s worth emphasizing that the upcoming Census data do not reflect any economic developments in 2025. Some policymakers will attempt to claim any good news from the data as validation of the current U.S. policy path, but this would be completely misleading given the radical policy shifts in 2025 under the Trump administration. In this piece, we argue:

• Data for 2024 will likely reflect continued labor market strength. Inflation decelerated rapidly in 2024, which should boost last year’s income growth. 
• Even the likely strong 2024 income and poverty data will still show an economy that has left many workers, families, and children in an economically precarious position. Racial disparities in income, for example, leave people of color much more vulnerable to economic insecurity and poverty.
• Trump administration policies—including chaotic and historically high tariffs, mass deportations, and attacks on the federal workforce—have already led to a softening labor market and more inflationary pressures in the economy. Given this, income and poverty measures are likely to worsen when these data are released next year for 2025.  
• In 2026 and beyond, cuts to food assistance and Medicaid that were part of the Republican-passed spending bill will increase food insecurity and the number of people without health insurance, particularly for families of color.
• The Census data are incredibly valuable and provide transparent and non-politicized data that allow Americans to make informed decisions about what policies are delivering economic security for working people. The Trump administration has begun attempting to politicize and erode trust in federal statistical agencies and to manipulate the reporting of anything that seems like bad news for the economy. This is deeply undemocratic.

Read more