We’ve been here before, and we know what comes next: White supremacy has always been used to usher in massive economic inequality
We’re a little over a year into the second Trump presidency. That second term began with the establishment of “The Department of Governmental Efficiency” (DOGE), a sustained campaign to discredit and undermine the usefulness and work of federal institutions and employees, and the issuance of multiple executive orders rescinding prior guidance on equity, including those related to federal affirmative action. The dismantling of entire federal agencies, alongside massive cuts in their capacity to make progress toward equity goals, swiftly followed (USAID, HHS, and the Department of Education are some of the most impacted agencies). During the summer of 2025, Republicans passed a spending bill that massively increased the size and scope of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), while giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and making drastic budget cuts to social assistance programs.
Throughout this second term we’ve also seen a steady increase in white supremacist rhetoric and images coming from government officials: Agency-run social media accounts make appeals to the homeland, remigration, and other white nationalist dog-whistle phrases, while the president himself continues to demonize nonwhite immigrants and cities with large minority populations, and to mischaracterize the Civil Rights Movement as harmful to white people.
These actions and rhetoric are not simply poor governance; they follow a historical script that white supremacists in the United States have used for centuries to undermine progress toward equity. Each time, that script sets the stage for policy changes that lead to a massive increase in economic inequality. Here’s the pattern:
A growing number of workers went on strike in 2025
From sanitation workers in Philadelphia to Boeing machinists in Missouri to nurses in California, thousands of workers across the country went on strike last year to demand higher pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions. New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that 306,800 workers were involved in 30 major work stoppages in 2025, a 13% increase from 2024. This is likely an undercount of strike activity given data limitations. However, the number of workers involved in major strikes remains elevated compared with the strike activity that occurred in the early 2000s (see Figure A).
Number of workers involved in major work stoppages, 1973–2025
| Year | Number of workers |
|---|---|
| 1973 | 1,400,000 |
| 1974 | 1,796,000 |
| 1975 | 965,000 |
| 1976 | 1,519,000 |
| 1977 | 1,212,000 |
| 1978 | 1,006,000 |
| 1979 | 1,021,000 |
| 1980 | 795,000 |
| 1981 | 728,900 |
| 1982 | 655,800 |
| 1983 | 909,400 |
| 1984 | 376,000 |
| 1985 | 323,900 |
| 1986 | 533,100 |
| 1987 | 174,400 |
| 1988 | 118,300 |
| 1989 | 452,100 |
| 1990 | 184,900 |
| 1991 | 392,000 |
| 1992 | 363,800 |
| 1993 | 181,900 |
| 1994 | 322,200 |
| 1995 | 191,500 |
| 1996 | 272,700 |
| 1997 | 338,600 |
| 1998 | 386,800 |
| 1999 | 72,600 |
| 2000 | 393,700 |
| 2001 | 99,100 |
| 2002 | 45,900 |
| 2003 | 129,200 |
| 2004 | 170,700 |
| 2005 | 99,600 |
| 2006 | 70,100 |
| 2007 | 189,200 |
| 2008 | 72,200 |
| 2009 | 12,500 |
| 2010 | 44,500 |
| 2011 | 112,500 |
| 2012 | 148,100 |
| 2013 | 54,500 |
| 2014 | 34,300 |
| 2015 | 47,300 |
| 2016 | 99,400 |
| 2017 | 25,300 |
| 2018 | 485,200 |
| 2019 | 425,500 |
| 2020 | 27,000 |
| 2021 | 80,700 |
| 2022 | 120,600 |
| 2023 | 458,900 |
| 2024 | 271,500 |
| 2025 | 306,800 |
Notes: The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not distinguish between strikes and lockouts in its work stoppage data. However, lockouts (which are initiated by management) are rare relative to strikes, so it is reasonable to think of the major work stoppage data as a proxy for data on major strikes. Data are for public- and private-sector workers.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Work Stoppages Summary” (news release), February 20, 2026, and related table, “Annual Work Stoppages Involving 1,000 or More Workers, 1947–Present.”
January saw steady job growth, but revisions show a much weaker 2025 labor market
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning. Read the full thread here.
Black women suffered large employment losses in 2025—particularly among college graduates and public-sector workers
The 2025 labor market can best be characterized as faltering. The national unemployment rate climbed to its highest point in four years, job growth slowed dramatically, and federal employment fell by a staggering 277,000. Black women bore the brunt of the economic slowdown, suffering far greater employment losses than other groups of women or Black men. Notably, some of the largest losses among Black women were college graduates and public-sector workers, according to our new analysis.
In 2025, Black women’s employment rate fell by 1.4 percentage points to 55.7%. This is one of the sharpest one-year declines in the last 25 years (see Figure A). The decline among Black men and white women was no more than 0.5 percentage points each while employment rose slightly for Hispanic (+0.6 percentage points) and AAPI (+0.4 percentage points) women. At 55.7%, Black women’s employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) was well below the most recent peak of 57.8% in 2023, reflecting employment losses that started in 2024 and accelerated in 2025. These estimates are also available in EPI’s State of Working America Data Library.
Low-wage workers faced worsening affordability in 2025 as wage growth stalled
Key takeaways:
- Real wages declined 0.3% for low-wage workers in 2025, a stark departure from the unusually strong wage gains they had experienced over the previous five years.
- This reversal was not inevitable—it was caused by policy decisions that weakened the labor market.
- Meanwhile, middle- and high-wage workers saw modest wage growth in 2025.
- Low- and middle-wage workers have suffered from decades of slow and suppressed wage growth. To improve affordability, policymakers can and must raise wages.
Low-wage workers saw their real (inflation-adjusted) wages decline in 2025, a sharp reversal from the historically fast real wage growth they had experienced over the previous five years. Middle- and high-wage workers continued to experience modest gains in 2025, according to our new analysis (see Figure A).
We examine wage growth across deciles, using the Current Population Survey (CPS) Outgoing Rotation Group microdata. Note: Due to the federal government shutdown and a lack of funding at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there are no CPS wage data for October 2025. That means that 2025 wages are calculated based on reported wages from the other 11 months of the year.
Six ways the Trump administration tried to erase MLK’s legacy in 2025
More than 60 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement helped generate the moral impetus and political will for U.S. lawmakers to pass sweeping legislation to combat the oppressive legacies of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the many expressions of racial discrimination in the United States. Through landmark legislation, the U.S. outlawed racial segregation, prohibited employment and housing discrimination, and dismantled legal barriers to voter registration—challenging a centuries-long denial of basic human and civil rights for people of color.
While acknowledging that these legislative achievements led to “some very wonderful things,” President Trump recently mischaracterized this historic period as one in which white people “were very badly treated” amid “reverse discrimination.” The president’s unfounded remarks explain why this administration has directly attacked more than half a century of progress toward racial and economic justice.
Here are six ways the Trump-Vance administration worked to undermine Dr. King’s legacy and curtail economic justice for people of color in 2025:
New research reveals how work permits reduce child labor violations
One year ago, EPI published a blog post summarizing research on the effectiveness of youth work permits in reducing child labor violations. Updated findings by the study’s authors reveal the mechanisms and features of work permits that make them so effective.
Amid increased child labor violations, youth work permit systems have been under attack in some states
In recent years, child labor violations have been on the rise across the country. At the same time, lawmakers in many states have proposed bills to reverse long-standing state child labor standards that prohibit employers from exposing youth under 18 to hazardous jobs or overly long work hours that interfere with their health and well-being. Youth work permits—which many states have historically required—have been a repeated target of this coordinated, industry-backed campaign to weaken child labor laws. Such permits typically require employers to outline the potential hours and work duties for a minor worker, as well as parental approval and verification that the minor is attending school.
Since 2021, lawmakers in at least nine states have proposed weakening or eliminating youth work permit systems, and four have enacted such legislation (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, and West Virginia). Most recently, in 2025, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy encouraged the legislature to pass a bill that would have eliminated the requirement that minors receive individual authorization to work (and replaced it with a general authorization for employers to hire minors). And in West Virginia, lawmakers successfully eliminated youth work permits for 14- and 15-year-olds and replaced them with age certificates following a two-year push by the right-wing think tank Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). FGA has played a leading role in efforts to eliminate youth work permits in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
New research explains how and why youth work permits are so effective
Proponents of eliminating youth work permits have often argued that work permits are not necessary, are overly burdensome for employers, or that they infringe on parents’ right to decide whether, where, and how long their child should work. In reality, work permits are a proven, effective policy for ensuring that young teens can enter the workforce safely by making sure employers are aware of child labor laws and that parents are fully informed about the conditions of a proposed job.
A year ago, we reported on research providing new quantitative evidence that work permits help prevent federal child labor violations. Using comprehensive data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division from 2008 to 2020, researchers at the University of Maryland and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, found that states requiring employment certificates saw 13.3% fewer violation cases and 31.8% fewer minors involved in these violations.1 States with work permits also saw 34.9% lower civil penalties per minor, indicating reduced severity of violations that do occur.
New findings from the same research team now reveal two key mechanisms that explain how work permits provide this protection: 1) work permits create a documentary paper trail that increases employers’ accountability and aids government enforcers, and 2) work permits improve compliance with state and federal standards by increasing employers’ awareness of child labor laws. According to the new analysis, requiring verification of parental consent for a minor to work and providing education to employers about hours restrictions are the main features that make work permits effective. State lawmakers can use the new findings to strengthen and modernize their youth work permit systems, using strategies proven to reduce violations and protect youth well-being.Read more
December jobs report shows a decidedly weaker labor market than a year ago
Below, EPI senior economist Elise Gould offers her insights on the jobs report released this morning, which showed 50,000 jobs added in December. Read the full thread here.
Billionaire-funded Trump Accounts won’t end child poverty: But they will widen structural inequities in the U.S. economy
In recent months, uber-rich families and companies have pledged millions of dollars to support a new savings program for children, known as Trump Accounts. In early December, for example, Dell Founder and CEO Michael Dell made a historic pledge of $6.25 billion to strengthen the new infrastructure for Trump Accounts. This gift aims to provide about 25 million children under age 11, from economically disadvantaged zip codes, with about $250 as an incentive to join the new savings vehicle. Soon after this, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio pledged $75 million to certain children in Connecticut in another effort to encourage additional participation.
The Trump-Vance administration has announced each of these charitable contributions with considerable fanfare, staging press and campaign-style events and promising that U.S. companies and other philanthropists will soon follow. What is often missing from the White House celebrations is an explanation of how exactly these gifts and the new Trump Accounts will alleviate child poverty and inequity.
The truth is that the U.S. falls behind peer countries from the developed world in its fight against child poverty. These deprivations are particularly harmful to children of color due to the deterministic role that structural racism plays in the American economy. A pretax and voluntary savings vehicle with little government support, and at the mercy of charitable inclinations, will do little for the millions of low-income families who can’t afford to save. In fact, these accounts are poised to compound structural inequities that have persistently delivered disparate outcomes for disadvantaged families. This is because the Trump Accounts fail to adequately account for the scope of child poverty and inequity. They also crudely overlook the root causes of these issues by framing them as the result of insufficient savings.Read more
Ending ACA tax credits would impose high costs on Black Americans in 10 major metro areas: Over 170,000 losing health insurance, $740 million more in annual premiums, and more than 200 preventable deaths each year
If Congress allows the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits to expire, millions of working families will lose health care coverage while millions of others will face sharply higher premiums. With four Republicans breaking ranks to vote with Democrats and force a House vote on whether to extend the credits, Congress now has a chance to avert this crisis. Losing the tax credits would be an added blow for households already squeezed by rising costs and tight budgets. But a deeper story emerges when we look at who stands to lose the most. A forthcoming analysis from the Economic Policy Institute and Groundwork Collaborative finds that Black Americans in some of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas would face deep coverage losses and financial harm if credits expire.1
This analysis was produced in partnership with Groundwork Collaborative.
More than 170,000 Black adults in 10 major metro areas would lose health care coverage in 2026 if the ACA credits expire, with the largest losses in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. Losing insurance wipes away a basic source of security for working families and reverses gains made under the ACA, which disproportionately reduced uninsured rates for Black adults—narrowing longstanding racial coverage gaps.
Our analysis shows that coverage loss is only the first shock. Families who lose insurance and families who remain covered both face significant new burdens, and the costs are substantial across the 10 metropolitan areas.