Key takeaways:

• The CROWN Act is legislation that protects students, workers, and housing applicants from race-based hair discrimination.
• 30 states have enacted some version of the CROWN Act, building momentum for a federal version to pass in Congress.
• Expansions of civil rights laws like the CROWN Act are more urgent than ever given Trump administration efforts to weaken nondiscrimination protections.

In an era of Trump administration attacks on nondiscrimination protections and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, workers and students need the guardrails included in the CROWN Act more than ever.

The CROWN Act stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. It expands existing civil rights law to prohibit race-based hair discrimination in schools, housing, and workplaces. Far from being solely focused on aesthetics, the CROWN Act protects against implicit bias and policing of Black and brown bodies. It codifies hair discrimination as racism and prohibits employers, public schools, and housing agencies from imposing whiteness as the uniform for success.

The CROWN Act is now law in 30 states

Pennsylvania and Rhode Island became the most recent states to pass the law in 2025, joining a growing list of states that have passed some form of the CROWN Act. Similar to the limited protections in Kentucky (which only provides public service and employee protections), Missouri also recently passed a limited version of the law that only applies to educational institutions—not workplaces or housing.

Figure A

Since the start of the second Trump administration, five states (Florida, Mississippi, Ohio, North Carolina, and South Carolina) have introduced at least one version of the CROWN Act.

Expanding CROWN Act legislation at the local level can be a significant incremental step toward expanding protections more broadly. In at least three of the states that introduced legislation, local CROWN laws have been adopted in cities including Charlotte, North Carolina, Columbus, Ohio, and Miami Beach, Florida. Such local policies have proven helpful in laying groundwork for passage of state laws elsewhere; for example, localities in Pennsylvania and Missouri passed CROWN Act laws years prior to these passing at the state level.

It’s time to pass the CROWN Act in Congress

Representative Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a federal version of the CROWN Act in the House and Senate last February. Neither bill has received a vote. With 60% of states already having passed the CROWN Act, the policy clearly has enough popular support to pass both chambers and become law.

A federal CROWN Act would provide consistent nationwide protection against hair discrimination for workers—especially Black women workers who have larger pay disparities and who are intersectionally impacted by a history of racist laws. Over 38.7% of Black women workers live in states where they are vulnerable to hair-based discrimination, based on the most recent 2024 data. That’s a slight improvement from the 44% of Black women workers who lacked protections in 2023, thanks to six more states—Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont—recently passing some version of the CROWN Act.

Table 1

Although some states did not have large enough populations of Black women to be tracked in the data presented in Table 1, Black students and workers in states with smaller Black populations remain susceptible to discrimination. In South Dakota, for example, a student was told to cut their locks or leave school. Black students have shared similar stories in states across the country with varying Black population density.

Expansion of the CROWN Act must be coupled with strong enforcement

In an anti-DEI political climate, preventing hair-based discrimination must be coupled with addressing a growing crisis in federal and state nondiscrimination enforcement systems. Current threats to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) enforcement mission are eroding protections for Black and brown workers. The EEOC was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the same law that the CROWN Act would expand) and was designed to be an independent federal agency to protect workers and promote fairness and equity in employment. The EEOC’s role in reducing discrimination has helped to boost average income by $493 to $1,233 per person since 1960. Historically, the EEOC has been a key source of protection for Black and brown people and women: A third of all EEOC charges were related to race (29,338) or sex (26,941) last year.

Figure B

Last year, the Trump-appointed chair of the EEOC hijacked the agency’s mission by actively soliciting complaints from white male workers and encouraging “DEI-related discrimination” claims of “reverse racism.” In addition to assigning a new chair, the Trump administration has weakened the EEOC by removing the ability to collect full pay data, limiting gender data collection, and removing commissioners—preventing a quorum and disrupting proceedings.

The Civil Rights Act itself and the protections that the EEOC was created to enforce are at risk. And some states are following the Trump administration’s lead by weakening state-level civil rights laws and enforcement systems. For example, in 2025, Iowa became the first state in history to strip nondiscrimination protection from a protected class when it removed gender identity from its state Civil Rights Act. In response, many cities and counties expanded their local civil rights ordinances to ensure protections against discrimination based on gender identity, but in 2026 the state went a step further and banned local governments from protecting any class not explicitly listed in state law. These recent legislative changes explicitly targeted trans people for discrimination, but will also have the broader effect of preempting local governments from adopting any expanded civil rights protections in the future, including local versions of the CROWN Act.

In the meantime, discrimination has not stopped and continues to have a measurable impact on Black, brown, and women workers—especially related to opportunities for securing a job and workplace advancement. New research finds that 59% of white adults hold anti-Black prejudice, contributing to a greater likelihood that Black applicants are rejected from jobs compared with their white counterparts. Women are paid 18.6% less than men. The disparity increases when considering race: Black women are paid 68.3% and Hispanic women are paid 64.5% of white men’s pay.

It is imperative to both expand protections like the CROWN Act at the local, state, and federal levels and strengthen state civil rights enforcement, while working toward eventual restoration of the EEOC’s capacity to carry out its mission to protect against discrimination in the workplace.

Imagine union membership tripling in the United States. It may sound radical—if you’ve forgotten history. In fact, more than 1 in 3 private-sector workers belonged to a union in the 1950s. The results? Wages grew in tandem with the economy. The middle class thrived. Black-white wage gaps shrank. Broadly shared economic growth was a reality, not an aspiration. That’s because when workers have bargaining power, they win better wages, benefits, and working conditions. This report shines a light on what we stand to win if we rebuild union power.

Over the last four decades, big corporations and the billionaires who run them have waged a relentless campaign against unions. And they have largely succeeded in reshaping the U.S. economy. By making it harder and harder for workers to organize and bargain collectively, the rich seized more and more income and wealth, destroying the U.S. middle class. Now the wealth of the richest Americans has exploded: The richest 0.1% own more than five times the combined wealth of the entire bottom half of the country.

And yet, workers haven’t given up. In 2025, unionization ticked upward. Public approval of unions has reached some of its highest levels in decades, and more than 50 million nonunion workers say they’d join a union tomorrow if they could. That’s because they know what unions deliver. In an economy that has been rigged against working people for decades, unions serve as a counterweight to corporate power—reducing inequality and building the kind of middle class that underpins a strong and inclusive economy.

It will take serious policy change to reverse nearly 50 years of deliberate attacks on working people and their institutions. It will require that politicians stand up to the superrich and corporate interests. It will require that workers continue to build power. But, as this report shows, we have much to gain from stronger unions. An organized and empowered workforce has powerful and far-reaching economic benefits.

Nearly four decades ago, I helped found the Economic Policy Institute because working people needed a voice in the economic debates that shape their lives. This report is exactly the work we envisioned: rigorous research that puts workers at the center of economic policy, and that arms all of us with the facts to fight for them. At a time when our economy is held in relatively few hands, we need this work—and we need unions—more than ever. 

Robert Reich
Professor, writer, and former Secretary of Labor

Executive summary

Union membership in the U.S. ticked up in 2025, breaking a decades-long trend of declining unionization. But today’s unionization rate doesn’t reflect the tens of millions of workers who want a union but can’t get one. This report examines what we stand to gain if we triple current union membership to 30%—restoring it to 1950s levels, when union strength delivered rising wages, narrowing racial wage gaps, and a thriving middle class.

Tripling union membership would:

• Deliver a 14.5% raise for the median worker—amounting to more than $7,700 annually, or nearly $270,000 over a 35-year career. These life-changing increases would benefit union and nonunion workers alike.
• Shift $1.2 trillion to workers annually. This would reverse a third of the increase in inequality experienced since 1979.
• Significantly narrow racial wage gaps. Because unions tend to boost wages more for Black and Hispanic workers than for white workers, tripling union membership would close racial wage gaps by more than one-third.
• Boost the number of people with health insurance. Since unions increase other forms of compensation, like health insurance benefits, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would fall by about 25%. Unions further reduce uninsured rates by advocating for increased public benefits like Medicaid.
• Strengthen communities. States with high union density invest more in public education, have higher unemployment insurance recipiency rates, and have all adopted Medicaid expansion.
• Protect democracy. Unions boost voter turnout, equip workers with civic skills, and actively defend voting rights. States with high union density have passed far fewer voter restriction bills than low-density states.

Download the factsheet

Roadmap for tripling union density

Reversing decades of political neglect that has stealthily undermined workers’ rights to unions and collective bargaining will require comprehensive reform that weaves together tested approaches with bold new ideas, at both federal and state levels.

Two bills with bipartisan support could help restore collective bargaining

• The Protecting the Right to Organize Act would restore private-sector workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. It would streamline the union formation process, establish penalties for labor law violations, override so-called “right-to-work” laws, and ban “captive audience” meetings.
• The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act would be the first federal law that guarantees all public-sector workers at the federal, state, and local levels the right to organize and collectively bargain.

Two bold new proposals could expand the benefits of collective bargaining and help tackle the affordability crisis

• Guaranteed annual raises for newly unionized workers. Legislation providing that newly unionized workers can use arbitration to achieve a first contract (if an employer fails to negotiate in good faith) should set a minimum standard that such contracts include a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). For the typical worker, a 3% COLA means roughly $2,000 extra a year.
• Default collective bargaining when CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceed 100:1. Declining unionization and the stratospheric rise in CEO pay are deeply connected. Strengthening the bargaining power of workers in severely imbalanced companies would enable them to capture a larger share of the wealth their work creates.

States can remove anti-union laws and protect collective bargaining

Removing so-called “right-to-work” laws and restrictions on public-sector bargaining alone would increase union density nationally from 9.9% to 14.4%. Beyond removing those unionization barriers, states can also:

• Extend collective bargaining rights to workers currently excluded from federal law (in-home child care, home health care, agricultural, and gig workers);
• Protect workers’ right to refuse mandatory, anti-union “captive audience” meetings; and
• Extend unemployment insurance eligibility to workers on strike.

Introduction

In 2025, 14.7 million workers—10% of all wage and salary workers—were union members, an increase from 9.9% in 2024.1 Though small, the increase marks a departure from prior years’ downward trend in union density and coincides with record high public favorability of unions.2

This report examines what the U.S. might look like if union membership were to triple to 30%, restoring it to roughly its 1950s peak. We analyze the economic, social, and democratic impacts of this increase; examine the potential impact on state union density rates if all states were to remove anti-union policies; and offer policy recommendations to expand union membership.

While tripling union membership is an ambitious goal, it is fully consistent with workers’ own demand for unions. Recent survey data show that 43% of nonunion workers would vote to unionize if given the opportunity—the equivalent of about 56 million wage and salary workers (Ahlquist, Grumbach, and Kochan 2024; McNicholas, Poydock, and Shierholz 2026). If all these workers unionized, union density would rise from 10% to 48.7%—well above the 30% goal we examine in this paper.

Union decline, wage suppression, and affordability

As union membership has declined, workers’ wages have been suppressed and inequality has skyrocketed. The gap between typical workers’ pay and economy-wide productivity is at a historic high.3 Since 1979, productivity has grown 2.7 times as much as pay for typical workers (Figure A). This divergence reflects both rising wage inequality—high earners experiencing much stronger wage growth than typical workers—and a shrinking share of the economy’s income going to workers overall. Between 1979 and 2023, real (inflation-adjusted) earnings for the top 0.1% grew 354% (from $618,000 to $2.8 million), while earnings for the bottom 90% of households grew just 44% (from $30,000 to $43,000) (EPI 2026a). And workers are now taking home a historically low share of corporate-sector income—meaning shareholders and other capital owners are capturing more than ever before (EPI 2026b).

Figure A

Inequality has grown since 1979 because of intentional policy choices that suppressed wages for typical workers to accelerate income growth at the top. If pay for typical workers had kept pace with productivity over the past nearly five decades, their paychecks today would be more than 40% larger (EPI 2026c). Though affordability pressures are often framed as a problem of high prices, the real problem is this wage shortfall—and reversing that shortfall must be central to any serious affordability agenda. Collective bargaining is the most effective mechanism workers have to raise their wages and secure their fair share of economic growth. Expanding union membership and collective bargaining is central to addressing the affordability squeeze.

Unions raise wages for all workers

One of the most well-studied benefits of unions is the ability of collective bargaining to raise pay—resulting in a “union wage premium.”4 Historically, that premium has fluctuated around 15–20% (EPI 2026d). Unions also reduce inequality by compressing the wage distribution within firms, with the largest benefits going to workers at the bottom and middle. This is one reason the union wage premium is typically larger for those with less education, and for Black and Hispanic workers relative to white workers (Bivens et al. 2023).

Less appreciated is that unions also boost wages for nonunion workers. Higher wages at unionized firms make those jobs more attractive to nonunion workers, indirectly pressuring nonunion firms to raise wages to keep their workers. Nonunion firms may also raise wages to avoid unionization, especially when union density is already high in the relevant sectors and occupations.

Finally, unions also advocate for progressive changes in the tax and benefit system—indirectly raising pre-tax pay for low- and middle-wage workers. This happens in two main ways: First, when taxes on top incomes are higher, corporate executives have less incentive to maximize their own income at the expense of workers’ wages.5 Second, more generous social benefits like SNAP and Medicaid increase the bargaining power of lower-paid workers by making them less economically vulnerable and better able to reject low-quality jobs (Bivens 2026).6

These “spillover” effects of unions on the nonunion sector are significant and increase when union density is high. Rosenfeld, Denice, and Laird (2016) and Farber et al. (2021) find strong evidence that unions raise the wages of nonunion workers. Consistent with this, Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd (2021) estimate that between 1979 and 2017, declining unionization was responsible for 37% of the increase in inequality between the 90th and 50th percentiles of male workers—and more than half of that impact occurred because, as unions weakened, nonunion employers faced less pressure to offer higher wages.

Tripling union density would shift $1.2 trillion a year to working people

Our analysis of the relationship between union density and state median wages finds that for every 10 percentage point difference in union density, real median wages are about 7.2% higher.7 If we tripled union density from 10% to 30%, the real median wage for all workers (including both union and nonunion workers) would rise from $25.67 in 2025 to $29.39 per hour—a 14.5% increase.8 A full-time, full-year worker earning that wage would see annual pay rise by more than $7,700.

To put this into perspective, consider the substantial growth in the gap between pay and productivity between 1979 and 2025. A full-time, full-year worker at the 2025 median wage was paid about $53,400 per year—but would have earned about $76,400 had their pay kept pace with productivity growth (EPI 2026e). Through direct wage increases for union members and unionization’s spillover effects on nonunion workers, tripling union density would close roughly one-third of the productivity-pay gap, increasing annual pay to $61,100.

To contextualize the gain in another way, consider that the median annual cost of a mortgage in the U.S. is $18,252. An additional $7,700 per year would cover more than 40% of that cost.9

Perhaps more strikingly, consider that an extra $7,700 a year adds up to nearly $270,000 (in today’s dollars) over the course of a 35-year career—a life-changing increase for a working family. Adjusting the USDA’s latest estimate of the cost of raising a child to 2025 dollars yields a current cost of roughly $317,000 to raise a child from birth through age 17, including food, housing, transportation, health care, clothing, child care, education, and other expenses (USDA 2017). The additional $270,000 in career earnings that a typical worker would receive if union density were tripled would cover 85% of that cost.

Or, according to the College Board, the average annual cost of attending a four-year in-state public college, including room and board, is about $31,000 (Ma, Pender, and Hu 2025). Over four years, that comes to $124,000 per student—so the additional $270,000 in career earnings would more than cover the cost of sending two children to college.

Yet another way to show how transformational these effects would be for the U.S. economy and the economic security of typical families: Assuming the 14.5% wage boost we estimate from a tripling of union density applies to the bottom 80% of the U.S. workforce, this would raise these workers’ combined pay each year by $1.2 trillion.10 

Several useful reference points help illustrate the scale of this $1.2 trillion increase in workers’ annual pay. First, the increase would be nearly three times as large as the $430 billion U.S. families received in “COVID checks”—and unlike those one-time checks, these gains would be permanent and recurring.11 Second, the $1.2 trillion that tripling union density would shift to workers slightly exceeds the Pentagon’s 2025 budget—a redistribution of income on a scale comparable to the entirety of the U.S. military-industrial complex.12 Third and most revealingly, this increase would claw back a full third of the increase in income inequality since 1979. Between 1979 and 2022, the share of market income going to the richest 20% of households rose by 12.0 percentage points (with nearly all of that increase—10.1 percentage points—accruing to the richest 1%). A $1.2 trillion increase in the incomes of the bottom 80% of households would reverse a third of that shift, 4.0 of the 12.0 percentage points.13

Our estimates likely underestimate future gains

It’s worth noting that while our estimates show large wage gains to workers from tripling union density, they are likely being significantly held down by the fact that union density in the U.S. is starting from such a low level (10%). Our estimates therefore likely understate the wage gains workers will experience once the labor market reaches a higher level of union density. Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd (2021) find that the wage payoff to union density is much larger where density is already high, and this shows up clearly in our analysis as well: Below 15% union density, a one percentage point increase in density is associated with just a 0.2% increase in the median wage; above 15%, the median wage increases by 0.9%—a wage response more than four times as large (see Figure B).14

The economic intuition behind this 15% threshold is that a minimum scale of unionization is needed for collectively bargained wages to exert a strong influence on pay scales—both union and nonunion—throughout the broader economy. While every additional percentage point of unionization gives another 1% of workers the union pay premium, it has a more limited effect on wage-setting throughout the broader labor market until overall union density reaches around 15%.

Today’s typical state has a union density of about 10%, which means the wage gains from each additional percentage point of unionization—while still significant—are muted relative to the gains that occur once union density exceeds 15%. In essence, the policy assault on unions in recent decades has pushed density so low that we need a 50% increase—from 10% to 15% union density—just to start realizing the “normal” gains unions can bring to a high-road economy. Raising density from 10% to 30% would carry the labor market across that 15% threshold and well into the higher-density regime, where each additional percentage point increase in unionization delivers substantially larger gains for the median worker. This is why a transformational policy effort is needed: We must rebuild union density from the depressed levels created by decades of political neglect to the point where the full wage benefits of widespread collective bargaining can be realized.

Unions reduce racial wage gaps

Because unions increase wages for Black and Hispanic workers more than for white workers, unions reduce racial wage gaps. And this dynamic is not new—research shows that the union premium was already higher for Black workers than for white workers by the mid-20th century, meaning that the spread of unionization in that era was one of the country’s greatest forces for racial justice (Farber et al. 2021; Bivens et al. 2023). But with the decline in unionization over the past 45 years, racial wage gaps have widened and are now substantially worse than they were in 1979—damage that restoring union power would more than reverse. In 2025, the median Black or Hispanic worker earned 76.5% of the median white worker wage—a wage gap of 23.5%. Tripling union density would close more than one-third of that gap, reducing it to 14.6%.15

Unions boost benefits, not just pay

Unions also increase other forms of compensation, like health insurance benefits. In 2025, 95% of union workers had employer-sponsored health insurance, relative to 71% of nonunion workers. In addition, as discussed later, unions further reduce uninsured rates by advocating for increased public benefits like Medicaid. Figure C shows that nonelderly uninsurance rates are substantially lower in states with higher union density. To do this analysis, we divided the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia into three equally sized groups based on their current (2023–2025) level of union density.16 Most low-union-density states have double-digit uninsured rates, but these rates typically fall to the single digits in medium- and high-union-density states. If union density tripled and all states were high-density states, the national nonelderly uninsured rate would fall by about a quarter, from 9.8% to 7.3%.

Figure C

Unions benefit communities

Unions don’t just improve workers’ pay and benefits—they give workers a voice in shaping the social fabric of their communities, lifting standards for union and nonunion workers alike. The data reveal a strong correlation between higher levels of unionization and a range of economic and personal well-being measures. When more workers are in unions, states have more equitable economic and social structures (McNicholas et al. 2025). Meanwhile, states with anti-union policies have lower union density and consistently worse outcomes across these measures.

Economic well-being

We first examine economic well-being—broadly defined as working people having the means to support themselves—using two indicators: the gap between productivity and pay, and unemployment insurance recipiency rates.

As discussed earlier, there has been a growing gap since 1979 between productivity—the value of the output generated by a worker in the U.S. economy in an hour of work, on average—and typical workers’ hourly compensation. Far from accidental, this divergence stems from deliberate policy choices in the U.S. beginning around 1980 that allowed the gains from economic growth to be increasingly captured by the highest earners, shareholders, and other capital owners—rather than being broadly shared across low-, middle-, and high-income households (Shierholz 2024).

The degree to which productivity gains have translated into higher pay for typical workers varies widely across states. Figure D shows that in states with smaller declines in unionization since 1979, a larger share of productivity gains translated into higher pay for typical workers. In other words, in places where unions remained stronger, it wasn’t just those with high incomes and wealth who benefited from economic growth—working people, both unionized and nonunionized, saw a bigger share of the gains.

Figure D

Unemployment insurance (UI) recipiency rates also offer insight into economic well-being. When a worker is laid off and their household income falls, unemployment insurance supports them and their family until they find another job. UI is a joint federal-state program that relies on state UI systems to effectively deliver benefits to unemployed workers. States differ in their rules and approaches under the federal UI framework, leading to wide variation in the share of unemployed workers receiving UI benefits (the UI recipiency rate).

Studies show a strong correlation between higher UI recipiency rates and high union density (Clegg et al. 2022); Figure E illustrates this strong positive relationship. In recent years, the average UI recipiency rate in high-union-density states was 36%, double the 18% rate in low-union-density states.

Unions fight to increase UI eligibility, ease of access, benefit levels, and benefit duration—to the benefit of all workers, union and nonunion (Hertel-Fernandez and Gould-Werth 2020). The strong correlation between union density and state UI recipiency rates suggests that expanding unionization by removing anti-union policies would result in higher UI recipiency rates.

Figure E

Personal health and well-being

Next we examine personal health and well-being—which we define as an individual’s physical and mental health—using one indicator, Medicaid expansion.

As we noted earlier, almost all union workers (95%) have access to health insurance, and uninsured rates are lower in high-union-density states. To show how unions influence health care coverage beyond explicitly bargained workplace plans, we examine whether a state has expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to broaden eligibility. The Medicaid public insurance program provides critical health coverage to families and individuals with low incomes. Research has found that Medicaid expansion has expanded access to health care; improved health outcomes, including fewer premature deaths; lowered uncompensated costs; bolstered financial security; and boosted economic mobility (CBPP 2020). While the Medicaid program has broad federal guidelines, it is administered by states—and a 2012 Supreme Court decision gave them the power to decide on eligibility and expansion. Since 2014, 40 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted Medicaid expansion; 10 states have not (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).

Figure F shows a stark divide between high- and low-union-density states in terms of Medicaid expansion. All 17 high-union-density states have expanded Medicaid. Out of 17 medium-union-density states, 14 have adopted Medicaid expansion (Alabama, Kansas, and Wisconsin are the only medium-union-density states that have not adopted expansion). Just 10 out of 17 low-union-density states have adopted Medicaid expansion (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are the low-union-density states that have not adopted expansion).

There is a strong correlation between union density and Medicaid expansion. If states removed anti-union policies and became high-union-density states, they would be joining a group of states in which Medicaid expansion is currently universal, potentially helping to close the Medicaid coverage gap that currently leaves 1.5 million adults uninsured (Zhang 2026).

Figure F

Spending on public education

Union density also intersects with public education investment. Investment in public education helped make the U.S. the richest country in the world in the 20th century. The benefits of universal education are many—including a more productive workforce, and a more informed and engaged democratic society equipped to think critically. Unions play a key role in negotiating public spending on education. At the school district and state level, education unions advocate for increased funds for schools. 

We can measure the relationship between union density and public education investment by looking at states’ level of per-pupil spending. Adequate levels of per-pupil spending are crucial to maintaining quality education; low per-pupil spending limits the support students receive toward achieving their learning goals and makes it harder for districts to retain teachers and staff by offering competitive salaries or benefits. Increased per-pupil funding pays off for students. Research has consistently shown that increased funding for schools improves educational attainment, student achievement, and economic outcomes in adulthood (Jackson and Mackevicius 2023). In one study, researchers examined the impact of school finance reforms between 1972 and 2010 and found that a 10% increase in school spending for 12 years leads to increased high school graduation rates, 7% higher wages, and 10% higher family incomes in adulthood for children from districts that saw the spending increase (Jackson, Johnson, and Persico 2016).

Figure G shows that states with higher rates of unionization spend substantially more per pupil on education—demonstrating the impact of union advocacy on education investment and building a more educated society.

Figure G

Voting rights and democratic participation

Many states disproportionately disenfranchise people of color (Johnson and Feldman 2020), and the number of voter suppression laws enacted across the country is high and rising. These restrictions threaten democratic participation and the stability of our democracy.

Unions strengthen democracy by encouraging civic engagement and helping workers become informed voters. Unions communicate with their members about issues and candidates to make sure workers have the information they need when they go to the polls. And as democratic institutions where members elect leaders and ratify contracts, unions serve as “schools of democracy,” equipping workers with civic skills that carry over to public life (Andrias and Hertel-Fernandez 2026). More broadly, because many organizations that shape policy represent elite or corporate interests, unions are a countervailing force, bringing working people’s voices into legislative debates and building coalitions that can win against well-resourced opposition.

Research shows that these effects translate into greater political participation. Union members are more likely to vote than the general public, and voter turnout is higher in states with greater unionization (EPI 2021). Conversely, turnout is lower in states with “right-to-work” (RTW) laws, which weaken unions and in turn the civic engagement they foster. Feigenbaum, Hertel-Fernandez, and Williamson (2018) found that RTW laws reduced presidential election turnout by 2%, a substantial effect given the narrow margins that often decide presidential elections.

We build on this evidence by examining the relationship between union strength and laws that restrict voting. Figure H shows that there is a strong correlation between union density and voter suppression legislation. A large majority of low- and medium-union-density states passed at least one voter restriction bill between 2023 and 2025, while a large majority of high-union-density states passed none. Among high-union-density states, 14 out of 17 did not pass any voter restrictions during this period, while only eight of the medium-union-density states and three of the low-union-density states can claim this distinction.

These results are consistent with evidence that unions actively defend voting rights. Unions have long mobilized members to oppose voter suppression laws, educated communities about their rights, and turned out to vote despite increasing barriers (Bondy 2025). Unions have also expanded access to voting: Dean, McCallum, and Grumbach (2023) found that county-level union density was associated with greater access to ballot drop boxes—a highly secure way to increase access to voting—during the 2022 midterm elections. Together, these findings suggest that stronger unions not only increase voter participation but also help preserve and expand access to the ballot.

Figure H

State policy and union density

Increasing union density across all states—including those where anti-union policies have historically suppressed unionization—is essential to strengthening both the economy and democracy, improving all workers’ wages, and expanding access to public goods like health care, retirement, and education.

As the previous section made clear, residents of high- and low-union-density states face starkly different economic and social realities. These wide variations in union density across states—and highly variable economic outcomes—are strongly correlated with variations in state labor policies. For example, the union rights of millions of public-sector, agricultural, and domestic workers (including home health care and in-home child care providers) vary by state because workers in these occupations are excluded from coverage under federal law. And even for private-sector workers whose union rights are covered under federal law, collective bargaining rights are limited by anti-union “right-to-work” laws in many states. Research shows that anti-union state policies result in lower union density. Union density averages 6.2% in states with anti-union RTW laws compared with 15.8% in non-RTW states, and states that limit or prohibit public-sector collective bargaining have lower overall union density than other states (Sherer and Gould 2024; Sherer and Morrissey 2026).

Here, we consider what union density would be if states with certain anti-union laws adopted the policies of states that better protect workers’ rights to unionize and collectively bargain. We consider two policy changes: 1) requiring state and local governments to bargain with public-sector workers who choose to unionize; and 2) repealing so-called “right-to-work” laws that limit collective bargaining rights of private-sector workers. These are two of many policies that states can adopt to remove barriers to unionization, but we focus on them because of their clearly documented, large-scale impact on large numbers of workers across much of the country. At present, roughly half of U.S. states have RTW laws in effect and do not require public employers to bargain with unionized public employees. Modeling changes to these two policies lets us estimate what would happen to union density if we removed large state-by-state labor policy disparities and created a stable “floor” for collective bargaining for workers across all states. This provides an important starting point for considering how additional, stronger state labor policies might affect union density, worker wages, and democracy.

Public-sector workers face wide disparities in bargaining rights across states

Variations in collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers are rooted in history, notably in Southern states where systemic racism drove the enactment of anti-union policies (Childers 2023; Dixon 2007; Kaufman 2018; Stelzner, Hoyt, and Ramchurn 2019). By the 1980s, most states had enacted public-sector collective bargaining policies, though these statutes varied in strength and coverage (Freeman and Ichniowski 1988). In more recent decades, many states have repealed or harshly limited formerly robust public-sector collective bargaining statutes, while a few states have expanded them. A key distinction is whether state and local government employers have a legal duty to bargain with unionized employees over pay and working conditions, rather than being merely permitted to bargain—or outright banned from doing so.

Sherer and Morrissey (2026) classify state public-sector bargaining rules across five categories of workers: teachers, police officers, firefighters, other local government employees, and other state government employees. States vary widely in which categories they cover and how strongly, and that variation maps closely onto union density. In states with strong, uniform duty-to-bargain rules across all five categories, public-sector union density can be close to 50% or higher, while in states that ban bargaining across most categories, state and local density can fall as low as the single digits. Pay consequences track these differences. Across the country, public-sector employees earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar experience and education. This public-sector pay gap is smaller when bargaining rights are strong: Sherer and Morrissey (2026) estimate that in states with robust duty-to-bargain rights, public-sector workers earn 14.3% less than private-sector workers; the gap widens to 19.6% in states where bargaining is only permitted, and to 22.5% in states where it is banned.

“Right-to-work” laws weaken union density and suppress wages for all workers

“Right-to-work” laws prohibit unions and employers from negotiating over union security—the contract terms under which workers covered by a union contract either join the union or pay an agency fee covering their share of representation costs. State RTW laws first emerged as part of anti-union industry campaigns to suppress multiracial worker organizing and maintain Jim Crow labor relations in Southern states following the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (Pierce 2017). By making union finances more unpredictable and leaving unions more vulnerable to ongoing employer interference, these laws weaken unions’ stability, suppress union density, and limit workers’ bargaining power. As a result, RTW laws generate negative outcomes for all workers—with or without a union. States with RTW laws have lower unionization rates and higher income inequality, and workers in RTW states on average have lower wages and benefits (Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd 2022). Sherer and Gould (2024) document that workers in RTW states earn 3.2% less than otherwise comparable workers in non-RTW states—about $1,670 per year for a full-time worker.

There are currently 27 states with RTW laws in place—including Colorado, which is not a traditional RTW state, but whose law has, since 1943, effectively imposed RTW conditions. By barring unionized workers from negotiating over union security unless they first win a second, state-administered election by a 75% supermajority of those voting or 50% plus one of all eligible workers—whichever is higher—Colorado’s anti-union policy has produced RTW-like outcomes, so we group it with RTW states.

Removing state anti-union policies would raise national union density from 9.9% to 14.4%

We estimate that these two policy changes—1) requiring state and local governments to bargain with public-sector workers who choose to unionize, and 2) repealing RTW—would substantially increase unionization in states that currently have more anti-union policies in place, as shown in Table 1.17 In the 24 states without a duty to bargain with public-sector employees, establishing that duty would raise public-sector union density from 16.7% to 46.7%. In the 27 RTW states, repealing RTW would increase private-sector density from 3.4% to 8.8%. Overall, removing these anti-union policies would increase union density in 27 states from 5.4% to 14.3%. Nationally, union density would rise from 9.9% to 14.4%.18 This is a conservative national estimate reflecting changes in union density only for the 27 states undergoing hypothetical policy changes and not including likely impacts on the 23 states and D.C. where stronger union policies are already in place. These states would likely also see some level of increased union density under this scenario, given that removal of anti-union state policies across the country would strengthen worker bargaining power and union organizing resources in all states.

Table 1

Removing state-level anti-union policies would increase median wages by up to $4,900 a year

Were the 27 RTW states to increase unionization to estimated levels, overall annualized median wages would rise by $1,600 to $4,900 for full-time, full-year workers, depending on the state. Table 1 shows that if Virginia’s density rose from 4.9% to 15.5% because of the removal of state-level anti-union policies, annual pay for full-time, full-year workers at the state median wage would increase by about $4,500. Removing these anti-union policies in Texas could cause a similar increase in density, raising annual pay by $3,400.

Of course, were workers in all states able to achieve 30% union density, the effects on median pay would be even larger. These impacts are shown in Figure I. The 23 percentage point increase in density in Alabama, for example, would increase annualized median pay there for full-time, full-year workers by about $8,500.

Figure I

Recent state policy changes show that anti-union laws lower union density

Recent “natural experiments” in states that have changed one or both of these labor policies also show the impact on union density. For example, in states that adopted new RTW laws since 2010, union density fell 3.8 percentage points between 2010 and 2023. By comparison, union density declined only 2 percentage points during this same period in non-RTW states (Sherer and Gould 2024).

Wisconsin is an example of a state that both repealed a previous duty to bargain with public employees (in 2011) and enacted a new RTW law (in 2015). Since adopting these anti-union policies, between 2011 and 2024, Wisconsin’s union density has fallen by half, from 14% to 7%. Over this same period, national union density declined just 2 percentage points, from 13% to 11%. With both a RTW law in place and no public-sector duty to bargain, Wisconsin’s union density is plummeting in comparison with national and regional trends (Dresser, Rogers, and Vasquez 2025). Other studies show that Wisconsin’s adoption of anti-labor policies and declining union density have generated a wide array of harmful outcomes for the state’s economy and democracy, including sharp decreases in public education spending, declining worker wages, widening public-sector pay gaps (including stark increases in gender pay gaps for teachers), and declining voter participation (Nack et al. 2019; García and Han 2021; Biasi and Sarsons 2022; Feigenbaum, Hertel-Fernandez, and Williamson 2018).

States have other policy options to enable workers to increase union density

Beyond these two policy changes, states have numerous other opportunities to increase union density by removing obstacles to unionization and ensuring more workers have full rights to collectively bargain (Sherer 2026). A few examples that have not yet been adopted in most states include:

• Creating pathways to collective bargaining for all workers in occupations not currently covered by federal labor law, including in-home child care and home health care workers, agricultural workers, and rideshare or delivery drivers treated as “independent contractors” by digital platform companies;
• Protecting workers’ freedom to refuse mandatory “captive audience” meetings on political or religious topics not related to work duties, including mandatory anti-union meetings employers typically hold when attempting to block workers from unionizing;
• Ensuring workers whose paychecks stop due to a strike or lockout are eligible to apply for unemployment insurance; and
• Establishing or expanding state agency capacities and public labor education programs that ensure workers can easily learn about their union rights.

We do not model the specific impacts of all possible state policy changes in this report. But our conservative, baseline estimate of increases in union density likely to result from removing two of the largest state obstacles to workers’ union rights—RTW laws in 27 states and the lack of a duty to bargain for public employees in 24 states—suggests that combining these changes with additional policy changes would likely lead to additional increases in union density across the country.

Federal policy and union density

Given the clear benefits of tripling union membership, it is critical that policymakers prioritize reforms that enable workers to organize and collectively bargain. It is tempting to search for a policy “silver bullet” to restore the promise of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), our primary labor law. But the reality is that policymakers must adopt comprehensive labor law reforms to eradicate the effects of decades of political neglect that has steadily undermined the effectiveness of U.S. labor law. As discussed above, these reforms must at a minimum reverse state anti-union policies, via state or ideally federal labor law reforms that end Jim Crow-era occupational exclusions, ensure equal union rights and pathways to collective bargaining for all workers in all states, and eliminate RTW laws.

Labor law reform has passed the House three times with bipartisan support

A consistent narrative maintains that such policy change is impossible, but that narrative relies on the mistaken notions that real reforms require more political power than the labor movement has and that our legislative process prevents labor law reform. It is true that winning policy fights takes significant political capital. But labor law reform must not be seen as solely a labor movement priority. It is central to any attempt to address affordability pressures and economic inequality. And in this moment, such reform is imperative to our democracy. While the Senate filibuster rules do prevent much legislative progress, they are not inevitable dictates but rather agreed-upon rules that, as history shows, can change. It is deeply destructive to our political system to convince working people that the system simply cannot be expected to serve their interests, which is what this flawed narrative around labor law reform reinforces. To be clear, policies favored by elites benefiting from the unequal status quo are far more likely to become law than even broadly popular ones. But these reforms have the potential to help rebalance this inequality.

In fact, in the last two decades, legislation to significantly reform labor law has passed the U.S. House of Representatives three times—with bipartisan support each time. Even in the current Congress, legislation aimed at restoring collective bargaining rights has managed to bypass Republican House leadership opposition via parliamentary procedure (discharge petition) and pass with bipartisan support.19 Of the on average 12,000 bills introduced in a given Congress, labor law reform measures have had more success than roughly 95% of bills—passing a chamber with bipartisan support. Of course, Senate rules around the filibuster requiring 60 votes to proceed on consideration of various measures have been a significant impediment to the Senate passing these reforms. However, since 2013, the Senate has used the “constitutional option” to change its own rules for procedures and has eliminated the 60-vote requirement to proceed on specific debates three times. That could be done here, too.

Record high union approval strengthens the case for labor law reform

Labor unions today have significantly higher public approval ratings than when major labor law reform was last considered, polling more than 20 points higher.20 Since 2021, approval for unions has remained high, with over 68% of people in the U.S. viewing unions favorably (Brenan 2025). This positive view of unions is shared across generations, with majorities of Boomers (59%), Gen X (58%), Millennials (61%), and Gen Z (63%) viewing unions favorably. Young adults (ages 18–35) have the highest favorability rate at 72% (Glass 2025).

Unions are viewed positively across party lines, with both Democrats (90%) and independents (69%) having high favorability rates for unions, and over 40% of Republicans approving of labor unions (Brenan 2025). Some conservative organizations recognize that unions are popular among workers: Research by American Compass (2025) finds that at least 46% of Republicans view unions somewhat favorably, with favorability increasing among young Republicans (60%).

Data from the American National Election Studies show that people in the U.S. favor unions over big business now more than ever—with the average rating for labor unions hitting a new high (60%), while big business hit a low (44%) (Sojourner and Reich 2025). Further, most people in the U.S. say the decline in union density is bad for the country (60%) and bad for working people (62%). Most young adults (69%), including young Republicans (52%) and young Democrats (82%), view the decline in union density as negative for working people (Van Green 2025).

Three bipartisan bills would pave the way toward restoring collective bargaining rights

As with many popular policies, high public opinion of unions has not translated into the enactment of labor law reform. Even though several bills that would reform aspects of our current labor law are being introduced and even passing with bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate has failed to act on the legislation. There are three main bills with bipartisan support that would help reform our current labor law system and each should be passed.21

• The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would restore private-sector workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. It would streamline the process of forming a union, create a roadmap to reaching a first collective bargaining agreement, establish civil monetary penalties for employers who violate labor law, among other reforms—such as expanding coverage to more workers, overriding state “right-to-work” laws, and banning “captive audience” meetings (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2021). Since its first introduction in 2019, the PRO Act has passed the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support.
• The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act (PSFNA) would establish public-sector workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively. This would fill an important gap—there is currently no federal law that guarantees all public-sector workers at the federal, state, and local levels the right to organize and collectively bargain. As a result, more than half of U.S. states today lack comprehensive collective bargaining laws for state and local public-sector workers (Sherer 2026).
• The Protecting America’s Workforce Act (PAWA) would reverse President Trump’s executive order that revokes collective bargaining rights for federal workers. The bill would reestablish collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million federal workers. In December 2025, PAWA passed the House of Representatives by a 231-195 vote.

Beyond passing these important bills, policymakers should also consider additional policies to help workers access collective bargaining and union membership. We propose two concrete policies that complement the labor reforms above. While these two proposals alone will not result in tripling union membership, they could help more workers receive the benefits of collective bargaining, which serves as a corrective to the affordability crunch and the economic inequality that characterizes our economy.

Guaranteed annual raises for workers in first contract arbitration

When workers win a union and begin to collectively bargain with their employer, both parties have an obligation to bargain in “good faith.” However, given that the NLRA lacks meaningful penalties for violations, employers often engage in bad faith bargaining tactics with few consequences. In fact, it is well documented that many union-busting consultants view bargaining as a new phase of union-busting and advise employers to drag out bargaining for as long as possible. The goal is to avoid reaching a contract for a year or more, hoping that workers will then give up their union through decertification, which is permitted one year after the election. It is no coincidence that workers who have successfully formed a new union spend an average of 465 days bargaining for a first contract before reaching an agreement.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act, which overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last month, would discourage delay and promote good faith bargaining by establishing a mediation and binding arbitration process when employers refuse to bargain in good faith. Beyond guaranteeing workers first contract arbitration, we suggest the adoption of a mandatory cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for workers whose first contract bargaining ends up in arbitration. This would establish an important guardrail for workers in the arbitration process, given that an arbitrator will ultimately impose a final contract on both parties. This provision would ensure that workers receive at least a COLA each year of their first contract. In other words, by voting for a union, workers would be voting for a guaranteed raise.22

For the average production, nonsupervisory worker, a 3% COLA would result in almost a $2,000 increase in annual earnings for a full-time, full-year worker. 23 Table 2 shows that, while these increases would vary widely by industry because pay varies widely by industry, workers in some of the lowest-paid industries would still see annual pay increases above $1,000.

Table 2

Default collective bargaining when CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceed 100:1

The outsized and ballooning gap in recent decades between CEO pay and the pay of typical workers is among the clearest signs that the economy’s rules have been rigged to allow the most powerful to claim oversized shares of income growth. This CEO-to-worker pay ratio rose nearly tenfold from 1978 to 2024, as the pay of CEOs rose over 1,000% while the pay of typical workers rose just 26%. The explosion of CEO pay was driven not by CEO’s rising productivity or skills, but by policy changes that boosted both the incentives and the ability of CEOs to raise their own pay.

When a firm’s CEO makes more than 100 times what the typical worker in their industry makes, effective corporate governance has clearly broken down—which threatens the ability of those outside the C-suite to receive their fair share of the firm’s income. The two main parties competing with executives to claim a share of a firm’s income are the shareholders and the firm’s workers. The best mechanism for ensuring that workers are able to bargain against CEOs and shareholders for their fair share of the income generated by the firm is collective bargaining.

We propose instituting default collective bargaining in any firm that meets or exceeds this 100:1 ratio. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting already requires the annual disclosure of CEO pay (SEC 2007). We propose that these disclosures be reported not only to the SEC but also to the National Labor Relations Board. Comparing those disclosures with Bureau of Labor Statistics data on the pay of a typical worker economy-wide in various industries, the NLRB would determine which corporations meet the default collective bargaining ratio of 100:1.24 The NLRB would then publish a public notice and notify specific corporations and their workers that the default collective bargaining ratio had been met, triggering default collective bargaining at the firm. The NLRB would then direct an election for a bargaining representative to be held within 45 days of the notification.25

Nonsupervisory workers at these firms would then have the opportunity to select a bargaining representative of their choosing—whether a labor organization or other representative. The NLRB would conduct the election for and certify a bargaining representative, after which bargaining would start. For purposes of default collective bargaining, the presumption for the bargaining unit would be a wall-to-wall unit—a model where all nonsupervisory employees join a single bargaining unit—ensuring comprehensive coverage under the collective bargaining process and resulting contract. This standard would apply absent an employer or employee representative demonstrating extraordinary circumstances.26 The NLRB would then determine the appropriate bargaining unit, the same way the agency already accepts or rejects bargaining unit proposals. We propose that all such questions be resolved within 10 days of the NLRB’s notice of election for bargaining representative. This proposal would not apply to existing bargaining units, but in firms where unions are present, it would apply to any nonunionized nonsupervisory employees, as described below.

A threshold of 100:1 for the CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio is reasonable and fair. A ratio this high clearly signals a fatal breakdown in the ability of the firm’s workers and shareholders to protect their income claims against executives looking to maximize their own incomes. A ratio this high will not affect most publicly traded companies but will be relevant to a large share of the U.S. workforce.

Comprehensive data on CEO pay are available only for a subset of firms: The Compustat Execucomp database tracks CEO pay for half of publicly owned companies (and most U.S. firms are not publicly owned). For the firms in the Compustat database, under half (41.7%) had a CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio exceeding 100:1 in 2024. This proposal would provide the 30 million workers employed in firms that have higher ratios—representing about a fifth of total private-sector employment in the United States—with collective bargaining.

It is not a coincidence that the stratospheric rise in CEO pay was accompanied by an acceleration in the downward trend of unionization in the United States. The broader correlation between declining unionization and the rise of inequality is well established, and the highest-quality research documents that this relationship is clearly causal, with the decline of unions leading to a higher share of income claimed by households at the top of the income distribution (Farber et al. 2021).

To be clear, using a threshold CEO-to-worker pay ratio as a trigger for default collective bargaining will not alone solve the problem of excess CEO pay. We focus on this threshold as a policy trigger because it is a readily available and measurable indicator of the outsized control of executives over the distribution of the firm’s income. In the total absence of collective bargaining or any other strong corporate governance institutions, firm executives will shift income in a zero-sum fashion away from both the workers and the shareholders of a firm. If shareholders manage to assert some influence over CEO pay—e.g., through public pressure campaigns or say-on-pay mandates—one likely outcome will be CEOs looking to suppress the firm’s wages even further to make room for both their own outsized salaries and a return to shareholders that placates them. Only collective bargaining can protect the interests and earnings of workers in firms where executives pocket an outsized share of firms’ incomes.

If collective bargaining became widespread enough throughout the corporate sector, it would likely not only boost workers’ wages but also rein in excess executive pay broadly—actually helping shareholders at the same time. The research on this question is encouraging: Unions and collective bargaining have been found to significantly restrain excess CEO pay (Huang et al. 2017; Nanda, Nishikawa, and Prevost 2025; DiNardo, Hallock, and Pischke 2000). But even if expanded collective bargaining does not tamp down the CEO-to-worker pay ratio beneath our 100:1 threshold, it will at a minimum protect workers’ interests from excess executive power—without foreclosing any policy route shareholders take to restrain excess CEO pay.

Currently, a number of firms with at least some degree of unionization among their workforces have CEO-to-worker pay ratios that exceed 100:1. But this is not an argument against using this threshold as an indicator of dysfunctional corporate governance requiring a strong policy solution. For many of these firms, union coverage among their rank-and-file workforce is far from complete, so this proposal would help fill in glaring gaps. Most of these firms clearly do pay wages that are among the highest in their industries, which signals that the policy of default collective bargaining to protect workers’ interests in the face of dysfunctional corporate governance would largely work. Finally, one key empirical driver of high CEO pay is the simple size of the firm: The CEO-to- worker pay ratio rises steeply with the size of the firm, all else equal.27 The firms with CEO-to-worker pay ratios above 100:1 and some degree of unionization among their workforces are large firms; it would take a very strong effect of collective bargaining on CEO pay specifically to have kept pay ratios at these large firms well below average.

In our world with only 10% union density (and less than this in the private sector), it should hardly be a shock that collective bargaining by itself has not been able to stem what has been an irresistible tide toward high CEO pay. Even large increases in executive pay are not enormous when compared with overall returns to shareholders. Given the strong policy and economic barriers to shareholder activism in restraining CEO pay, it takes truly outrageous pay scales to mobilize enough organized opposition from shareholders. In those firms where it is relatively strong, collective bargaining has protected workers’ interests, and that is the primary goal we are looking to achieve with this policy. The fact that in these firms the CEOs have felt free to shift income to themselves at the expense of other stakeholders (like the shareholders of the firm) is not a sign that default collective bargaining is a bad solution for protecting workers’ interests—it is only a sign that the problem of excess CEO pay needs to be addressed from other angles as well.

Tripling union density is what workers want—and it is entirely achievable

Restoring union density to 1950s levels is not a nostalgic pipe dream. Federal and state policymakers have a clear roadmap for tripling union density. While no single reform discussed in this report is a silver bullet for the problems facing the country, taken together they would address one of the worst: the erosion of workers’ right to bargain for their fair share of the wealth they produce. These reforms are meaningful steps toward tripling union density, and toward an economy where productivity gains are shared broadly, not captured by corporate elites and the superrich.

The evidence in this report shows what is at stake. Tripling union density would deliver nearly $270,000 in extra earnings over the median worker’s career and shift $1.2 trillion annually to working people—reversing a third of the rise in inequality since 1979. Rebuilding union power would narrow racial wage gaps by more than a third, and removing state anti-union policies would help dismantle the legacy of Jim Crow-era campaigns aiming to suppress multiracial organizing. States with higher union density deliver better economic and personal well-being outcomes to their residents, and they have healthier democracies with fewer voting restrictions. At a time when the voting rights of all citizens are under attack, rebuilding union power is a democratic imperative.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Hilary Wething for her contribution to this report’s section on public education spending. We also thank Matthew Wich, Summer Labor Fellow from the Institute for Social Concerns at the University of Notre Dame, for his support of the project.

Appendix

Methodology

How we measure union density

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides data on both union membership—workers who are full-fledged union members—and union representation, which includes both union members and workers who are not members but are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. As a result, the share of workers represented by a union is higher than the share of union members. For example, in 2025, 11.2% of workers were represented by a union, but 10% were union members.

In this report, we measure union density as the share of workers who are members of a union. Throughout this report, the terms “union density” and “unionization” refer to those who are members of a union. When measuring union density by state, data are averaged over three years (2023 to 2025) to give a more accurate estimate of state unionization rates and avoid temporary single-year changes due to small sample sizes in some states.

Estimating wage effects of tripling union density

To assess how much higher wages would be after tripling union density, we use state-level annual data on wages and unionization from 1979 to 2019 and compare median wages with unionization rates across states and over time. Specifically, we regress the state median wage on the state union membership rate, controlling for permanent differences in state characteristics, national annual shocks (like recessions), and annual state characteristics like state unemployment rate, minimum wage level, and education, race, age, gender, broad industry, and managerial shares.

Using state-level data from the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group for 1979–2019, we regress the log median wage on union density with state and year fixed effects and additional covariates: the log minimum wage, unemployment rate, and shares of those with less than a high school degree and just a high school degree, age group shares, and shares of those who are white, Black, Hispanic, married, and shares of those in the public sector, manufacturing, construction, services, and a managerial occupation. Regressions are weighted by state employment levels averaged over 1979–2019. The coefficient on union membership is 0.724 with a standard error, accounting for clustering at the state level, of 0.191.

To calculate effects of increasing union density on racial wage gaps, we use the same wage regression as before, except where the dependent variable is the state annual racial wage gap.

The calculation yielding the $1.2 trillion estimate of the annual increase in workers’ pay from tripling union density is as follows. First, the share of total labor income claimed by the bottom 80% is calculated from data provided by the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO 2026) Distribution of Household Income data (we focus on the bottom 80% because research has generally identified the positive effect of unions on boosting pay as applying mostly to union and nonunion workers in the bottom 80% of the U.S. workforce). In 1979 this share was 60.5%, but by 2019 it had fallen to 50.1%. We use 50% for our calculations. Then we multiply the 14.5% boost to pay stemming from a tripling of union density by this 50% of labor income to get an estimate (7.25%) of how much total labor compensation would rise in the event of a tripling of union density. In the first quarter of 2026, the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 2.1 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (2026a) reports that total labor compensation was $16.1 trillion. Multiplying this by the 7.25% pay boost from tripling union density yields $1.16 trillion in higher pay for the bottom 80%. We believe this is the appropriate estimate for approximating how much higher wages would be for most workers if union density tripled. While potential caveats merit consideration, none, in our view, hold much force. For example, the regressions used earlier in the paper use median wages, not median total labor compensation, as the dependent variable. However, a long research literature has highlighted that benefit premiums stemming from unionization are likely even larger than wage premiums (Knepper 2020). To the degree that tripling union density works by giving all workers more leverage and bargaining power in labor markets, it seems clear that some of this leverage will be used to obtain broader and more generous coverage of benefits, not just higher wages. Another objection could be that union effects (both direct and indirect effects) are higher in the middle of the wage distribution than in either the lower or upper parts of the distribution, and hence the full 14.5% wage boost would only apply to (say) the second and middle fifths of workers while workers in the lowest and fourth fifth would see smaller wage boosts. However, in work that has estimated both the overall average effect of unionization on nonunion wages and the effect by wage percentile, the overall average effect is roughly one-half the effect at the median, a result that would be consistent with applying the 14.5% premium to half of all labor income, as we do (Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd 2021). Other research has similarly found that union effects at the median are very close to overall average effects (Baker et al. 2026).

For our analysis of how wage effects differ across union density levels, we use the same regression of log median wages on union density described above, modified to let the slope differ below and above 15% density using a piecewise-linear specification interacting union density with an indicator for density of at least 15%, while retaining the same controls and state and year fixed effects, weighted by state employment. The difference in slopes is statistically significant at the 1% level.

The scatterplot in Figure B uses 50 state-year bins to show this nonlinearity directly. The binned scatterplot groups the state-year observations into 50 employment-weighted bins by union density and plots each bin’s average real log median wage against its average union density, after partialing out the same controls and state and year fixed effects used in the regression.

State union density groupings

We divided the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia into three equally sized groups based on their current (2023–2025) level of union density.

These groupings are shown in Appendix Table 1. We refer to the 17 states with the highest union density as “high-union-density states” (with 11.9%–25.1% union membership rates); the next 17 states (including D.C.) are “medium-union-density states” (6.8%–11.6%); and the remaining 17 are “low-union-density states” (2.5%–6.1%).

Appendix Table 1

Estimating union density effects of establishing a public-sector duty to bargain and repealing “right-to-work” laws

To estimate the effect of these two policy changes—1) requiring state and local governments to bargain with public-sector workers who choose to unionize, and 2) repealing RTW—we use the CPS Outgoing Rotation Groups for 2023–2025 to compute union density rates in states with stronger union policies (i.e., states with public sector collective bargaining and/or without RTW). We do this separately by industry and major occupation group for the private sector and by level of government (federal, state, and local) for the public sector. We then apply those rates to the workforce of each state that lacks the corresponding policy, holding each state’s industry, occupation, and government-employment mix fixed. Nevada is an exception on the private-sector side: Although Nevada is a RTW state, its private-sector union density is already comparatively high, so we hold its private-sector density at its current level.

Notes

1. “Union membership” refers to workers who are full-fledged union members, while “union representation” includes both union members and workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement but not members. The share of workers represented by a union is thus higher than the share of union members. In 2025, for example, 11.2% were represented by a union and 10% were union members.

2. In 2025, for the fifth consecutive year in a row, approval of unions reached record high levels last seen in the late 1950s, when union membership was roughly triple what it is now.

3. The productivity-pay gap is a measure of how much income is generated in an average hour of work.

4. “Union wage premium” refers to the additional wages paid to union members compared with nonunion workers with similar characteristics.

5. For example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91%, as it was in the 1950s and early 1960s, executives kept far less of each additional dollar of pay than they do under today’s 37% top rate, which reduced the payoff to pursuing ever-larger compensation packages.

6. Relatedly, expanded unemployment benefits during the pandemic boosted workers’ bargaining power and compelled employers to make higher wage offers (Bivens and Banerjee 2023).

7. See appendix for details about our methodology.

8. The real median wage is the wage of the person in the middle of the overall wage distribution, including both union and nonunion workers.

9. The median monthly cost of a mortgage in the U.S. is $1,521 according to Census (2025). Over the course of a year, that is $18,252.

10. See appendix for details about the calculation of this figure.

11. In 2020 and 2021, Congress authorized Economic Impact Payments—better known as the “COVID checks.” Those three rounds of payments added roughly $430 billion to U.S. families’ personal income in those years and were widely viewed as an historically ambitious economic intervention. Data on how much these checks added to personal income can be found at Bureau of Economic Analysis (2026c).

12. Data on federal defense spending in 2025 is from Bureau of Economic Analysis (2026b).

13. Data on the income shares by percentile come from CBO (2026), which contains data through 2022. The calculation of how much the $1.2 trillion gain to wages would reverse the rise in income shares of the top quintile uses data from BEA (2026a).

14. See appendix for details on how we estimated these wage effects.

15. See appendix for details on how we calculated the effects of increasing union density on racial wage gaps.

16. See Appendix Table 1, which shows how we grouped states into low-, medium-, and high-union-density categories.

17. For details on the data and methodology used to produce these estimates, see appendix.

18. For this state-level analysis, we use 2023–2025 averages of union density across states, which is 9.9%, rather than the 10% for 2025 cited earlier in this report.

19. See passage of Protecting America’s Workforce Act and Faster Labor Contracts Act.

20. The last time a major labor law reform was considered was in 2009 with the Employee Free Choice Act.

21. The Protecting the Right to Organize Act has two Republican co-sponsors, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act has six Republican co-sponsors, and the Protecting America’s Workforce Act has nine Republican co-sponsors.

22. One way to determine the exact COLA amount is to use nonseasonally adjusted values of the national Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These price index values are easily available, less subject to revision, and widely covered in the media. The simplest COLA adjustment would be to use the annual rate of inflation measured as the percent change between the two most recent annual averages of nonseasonally adjusted CPI-U values. See BLS (2023) for other considerations.

23. CBO estimated CPI in 2026 at 2.8%, 2027 at 2.4%, and then 2.3% after—however those estimates were done before the U.S. war in Iran that increased energy prices, so we estimate COLA at 3% for purposes of the proposal. To calculate full-time, full-year worker wages, we used 2025 average production, nonsupervisory wage rates (EPI 2026f).

24. We specifically would recommend calculating the CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio using the methodology detailed in EPI (2025). 

25. In order to appear on the ballot, an individual or organization would have to demonstrate a record of collective bargaining over the preceding three years or obtain 100 signatures or 10% of the workforce, whichever is less.

26. The showing of extraordinary circumstances is referenced in the acute care hospital rule: 29 CFR § 103.30 (1989).

27. This correlation between simple firm size and CEO pay is yet another piece of evidence that CEO pay is not about the skills or acumen of individual CEOs, but is driven by noncompetitive market structures and labor markets for executives.

References

AFL-CIO Tech Institute. 2026. “It’s Better in a Union!” (web page). Accessed July 7, 2026.

Ahlquist, John S., Jake Grumbach, and Thomas Kochan. 2024. The Rise of the ‘Union Curious’: Support for Unionization Among America’s Frontline Workers. Economic Policy Institute, July 2024.

American Compass. 2025. PRO-Tip: Only Some Labor Reforms Are Pro-Worker. May 1, 2025. 

Andrias, Kate, and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez. 2026. Democratic Abundance: An Abundance That Works for Workers. Roosevelt Institute, April 2026.

Baker, Michael, Yosh Halberstam, Kory Kroft, Alexandre Mas, Derek Messacar. 2026. The Impact of Unions on the Wage Distribution: Evidence from Higher Education. American Economic Review: Insights 8, no. 2 (June): 196–213.

Biasi, Barbara, and Heather Sarsons. 2022. “Flexible Wages, Bargaining, and the Gender Gap.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 137, no. 1 (February): 215–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab026.

Bivens, Josh. 2026. “Employer Assessment Fees Are Not an Adequate Solution to Low Wages and Large Safety Net Cuts.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 27, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, and Asha Banerjee. 2023. Lessons from the Inflation of 2021–202(?). Economic Policy Institute, April 2023.

Bivens, Josh, Celine McNicholas, Kyle K. Moore, and Margaret Poydock. 2023. “Unions Promote Racial Equity” (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, July 31, 2023. 

Bondy, Assaf S. 2025. “Workers For Democracy? Trade Unions and the Struggle Against Democratic Backsliding.” Democratization 33, no. 2: 344–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2507359. 

Brenan, Megan. 2025. “Labor Union Approval Relatively Steady at 68% in U.S.” Gallup, August 28, 2025. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2026a. National Income and Product Accounts Table 2.1. – Personal Income and Its Disposition. Accessed June 25, 2026.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2026b. National Income and Product Accounts Table 1.1.5 – Gross Domestic Product. Accessed June 25, 2026.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2026c. COVID-19 and Recovery Archive – Personal Income. Accessed June 25, 2026.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2023. How to Use the Consumer Price Index for Escalation. June 8, 2023.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2026. Employee Benefits in the United States. Table 2. Medical care benefits: Access, participation, and take-up rates, March 2025. Last modified September 25, 2025. Accessed May 4, 2026. 

Census Bureau. 2025. “Monthly Mortgage Payments for Homeowners Who Moved in 2024 Were $2,225, Above the U.S. Median of $1,521.” September 11, 2025.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 2020. The Far-Reaching Benefits of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid Expansion (chart book). October 21, 2020. 

Childers, Chandra. 2023. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation. Economic Policy Institute, October 2023.

Clegg, Daniel, Elke Heins, and Philip Rathgeb. 2022. “Unemployment Benefit Governance, Trade Unions And Outsider Protection In Conservative Welfare States.” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 28, no. 2: 195–210. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221094240. 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2026. Distribution of Household Income 2022.

Dean, Adam, Jamie McCallum, and Jake Grumbach. 2023. Labor Unions and the Defense of American Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, December 2023. 

DiNardo, John, Kevin F. Hallock, and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2000. “Unions and the Labor Market for Managers.” IZA Discussion Paper, August 2000.

Dixon, Marc. 2007. “Limiting Labor: Business Political Mobilization and Union Setback in the States.” Journal of Policy History 19, no 3: 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1353/jph.2007.0015.

Dresser, Laura, Joel Rogers, and Leslie Vasquez. 2025. The State of Working Wisconsin 2025. High Road Strategy Center, August 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2021. “Unions Help Reduce Disparities and Strengthen Our Democracy” (fact sheet). April 23, 2021.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025. “CEO Pay Has Skyrocketed Since 1978: Discussion of our Methods” (web page). Last updated September 25, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026a. “Average Real Annual Wage (2023$),” State of Working America Data Library. Accessed June 30, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026b. “Nominal Wage Tracker” (web page). Accessed June 30, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026c. “The Productivity–Pay Gap” (web page). Last updated March 23, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026d. “Union Wage Premium – Union Wage Premium, Average (Regression-Based),” State of Working America Data Library. Accessed May 4, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026e. “Wage Calculator” (web page). Accessed May 4, 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026f. “Hourly Earnings by Industry – Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Average Nominal Wage,” State of Working America Data Library. Accessed June 30, 2026.

Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. 2021. “Unions and Inequality over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 136, 3 (August): 1325–1385.

Feigenbaum, James, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, and Vanessa Williamson. 2018. “From the Bargaining Table to the Ballot Box: Political Effects of Right to Work Laws.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 24259, January 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w24259.

Fortin, Nicole, Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd. 2021. Labor Market Institutions and the Distribution of Wages: The Role of Spillover Effects. Journal of Labor Economics 39, no. S2.

Fortin, Nicole, Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd. 2022. “Right-to-Work Laws, Unionization, and Wage Setting.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 30098, June 2022. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30098.

Freeman, Richard B., and Casey Ichniowski. 1988. When Public Sector Workers Unionize. Chicago, Il.: Univ. of Chicago Press.

García, Emma, and Eunice Han. 2021. The Impact of Changes in Public-Sector Bargaining Laws on Districts’ Spending on Teacher Compensation. Economic Policy Institute, April 2021.

Glass, Aurelia. 2025. “Everybody Likes Unions.” Center for American Progress, November 4, 2025. 

Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, and Alix Gould-Werth. 2020. Labor Organizations and Unemployment Insurance: A Virtuous Circle Supporting U.S. Workers’ Voices and Reducing Disparities in Benefits. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, October 2020.

Huang, Qianqian, Feng Jiang, Erik Lie, and Tingting Que. 2017. “The Effect of Labor Unions on CEO Compensation.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 52, no. 2: 553–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109017000072.

Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. 2016. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, no. 1: 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036. 

Jackson, C. Kirabo, and Claire L. Mackevicius. 2023. “What Impacts Can We Expect from School Spending Policy? Evidence from Evaluations in the United States.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 16, no. 1: 412–446. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20220279.

Johnson, Theodore R., and Max Feldman. 2020. The New Voter Suppression. Brennan Center for Justice, January 2020. 

Kaufman, Dan. 2018. “A Labor Day Reflection on Unions, Race, and Division.” The New Yorker, September 3, 2018.

KFF. 2026. Health Insurance Coverage of Population Ages 0-64: 2024. Accessed May 4, 2026. 

Knepper, Matthew. 2020. “From the Fringe to the Fore: Labor Unions and Employee Compensation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 102, no. 1: 98–112.

Ma, Jennifer, Matea Pender, and Xiaowen Hu. 2025. Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2025, College Board.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2021. “Why Workers Need the Protecting the Right to Organize Act” (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, February 9, 2021.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. Workers’ Resolve Drives Increase in Unionization in 2025. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Heidi Shierholz, and Hilary Wething. 2025. Unions Aren’t Just Good for Workers—They Also Benefit Communities and Democracy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2025.

Nack, David, Michael Childers, Alexia Kulwiec, and Armando Ibarra. 2019. “The Recent Evolution of Wisconsin Public Worker Unionism Since Act 10.” Labor Studies Journal 45, no. 2: 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X19860585.

Nanda, Vikram, Takeshi Nishikawa, Andrew Prevost. 2025. “The Impact of Unions on Compensation Consultants and CEO Pay.” Financial Management 54, 89–122. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12472.

Pierce, Michael. 2017. The Origins of Right-to-Work: Vance Muse, Anti-Semitism, and the Maintenance of Jim Crow Labor Relations. The Labor and Working-Class History Association, January 12, 2017.

Rosenfeld, Jake, Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird. 2016. Union Decline Lowers Wages of Nonunion Workers. Economic Policy Institute, August 2016. 

Securities and Exchange Commission. 2007. “Executive Compensation” (web page). Last modified January 4, 2007.

Sherer, Jennifer. 2026. Holding the Line: Rights to Unionize and Collectively Bargain. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

Sherer, Jennifer, and Elise Gould. 2024. “Data Show Anti-Union ‘Right-to-Work’ Laws Damage State Economies.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 13, 2024.

Sherer, Jennifer, and Monique Morrissey. 2026. Stronger Collective Bargaining Laws Will Benefit All Virginians. Economic Policy Institute, January 2026.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2024. “Middle-Out Economics Is Good for Workers, Their Families, and the Broader Economy.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 19, 2024.

Sojourner, Aaron, and Adam Reich. 2025. “Americans Favor Labor Unions Over Big Business Now More Than Ever.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 20, 2025. 

Stelzner, Mark, Eric Hoyt, and Toushita Ramchurn. 2019. Structured Conflict: Changes in Federal and State Labor Laws and Strike Activity, 1950 to 2017. Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst, May 2019.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. “2015 Expenditures on Children By Families” (web page). Accessed June 30, 2026.

Van Green, Ted. 2025. “Majorities of Adults See Decline of Union Membership as Bad for the U.S. and Working People.” Pew Research Center, August 27, 2025. 

Zhang, Elizabeth. 2026. Nearly 3 Million Uninsured Adults Would Gain a Path to Medicaid Coverage if Their States Adopted ACA Medicaid Expansion. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 19, 2026.

Since the second Trump administration swept into office in January 2025, it has undertaken a range of damaging and destabilizing actions that have weakened the economy, undermined workers, hurt businesses and consumers, and threatened core elements of our democracy. While Trump has targeted numerous Democratic-led states and cities, the Washington, D.C., region has faced acute and prolonged harms since day one. From the first set of executive actions signed on Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has attacked people and businesses in the capital region repeatedly and intensely. These initial actions announced the president’s dubious claims of authority to fire large segments of the federal workforce, eliminate long-standing federal agencies and programs, and begin a campaign of illegal and inhumane mass deportations.  

The Trump administration’s damaging actions have been enabled and abetted by Republican members of Congress. Their passage of H.R. 1, the bill that the White House has referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), amplifies the administration’s mass deportation agenda and shreds critical health care and food supports for lower-income families to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. This funding bill will only cause more pain in the years ahead for Washington, D.C.-area households and throughout the country.

Congress also passed a federal spending bill that constrained the District of Columbia’s ability to spend its own tax revenue (Koma 2025) and a resolution that may force the district to adopt local tax code changes that match the OBBBA, whether the city wants to or not—changes that will jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars for city programs (D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute 2026).

In this report, we assess the early indicators of the damage of Trump’s actions and their effects on the Washington, D.C., regional economy, with particular attention to effects on workers and the labor market. We focus on this region due to its prominence as an early target of the Trump administration, in part due to its large federal workforce. Additionally, the district’s unique status as a non-state means that its leaders have far less legal authority to resist Trump’s interference than other target areas do.

Throughout this report, unless otherwise indicated, the data describe economic conditions for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which includes the District of Columbia, four nearby counties in Maryland, six cities and 11 counties in northern Virginia, and one county in West Virginia. We also refer to this region as the DMV (Washington, D.C.; Maryland; and Virginia). While we do not yet have the requisite data to fully and precisely document all the effects of the administration’s actions, we can see clear signals that the regional economy is already struggling, with more severe impacts likely to register in the data soon.

We then explore some of the factors that make other regions particularly vulnerable to significant economic harm from the Trump administration’s agenda. These include counties with large concentrations of federal workers, areas where federal transfer income (such as Medicaid and Social Security) makes up a significant portion of the region’s economic base, and places with significant immigrant populations. Though Trump has largely targeted prominent, Democratic-led areas, many of the regions most susceptible to the harmful economic consequences of the administration’s actions are rural counties, frequently represented in Congress by Republicans.

Trump’s actions in Washington, D.C., have led to reduced employment and rising unemployment

The clearest sign of the harm that the Trump administration’s actions have done to the Washington, D.C., regional economy is the substantial drop in the region’s employment rate. Based on EPI analysis of Current Population Survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from December 2024 to December 2025, the share of the regional working-age population with a job fell by 3.2 percentage points.1 As shown in Table 1, this compares with a decline of just 0.4 percentage points for the country over the same period. Among prime-age workers (those ages 25–54), the share employed in the DMV fell by 2.7 percentage points, compared with a decline of just 0.1 percentage points for the country overall.

This dramatic drop in regional employment is a direct result of the Trump administration’s relentless attacks on federal government workers, cuts to federal programs and agencies, and their cascading effects on connected regional industries. Prior to Trump’s taking office, federal employees made up 11.2% of the metro area’s total workforce (BLS-CES-SAE 2025).2 Between the end of 2024 and 2025, federal employment in the DMV region fell by more than 53,800 jobs (-14.2%) (BLS-CES-SAE 2026).3 These losses reverberated through the regional economy as affected households pulled back on spending, and many may have even opted to move, as data show the DMV region had the largest increase in home sale listings of any major metro last year (Brookings Institution 2026).

These significant cuts to federal employment, though highly damaging on their own, are only the first layer of the administration’s harm on the regional labor market. The DMV has a non-federal workforce of over three million people (BLS-CES-SAE 2026), many of whom work at firms that consult with, contract with, are funded by, or are otherwise connected to the government.4 The Trump administration has terminated thousands of grants to scientific research institutions (Kozlov, Tollefson, and Garisto 2026) and frozen or delayed funding for tens of thousands of nonprofit organizations, causing those targeted to limit operations or lay off staff (Tomasko et al. 2025). These cuts have also shrunk the funding pool for nonprofit groups, causing budget challenges even for those not previously receiving federal funding, as they must compete with groups previously funded through federal programs that are now scrambling to fill gaps with private support (Barrett 2025). The administration has also moved to cancel contracts with any company that maintains a commitment to DEI standards (Singh 2026). Although these cuts affect organizations everywhere, the DMV is disproportionately vulnerable to the economic harms of attacks on this sector as it has one of the highest concentrations of nonprofits in the country (Friesenhahn 2025). This is evident in the region’s slight dip (-0.3%) in private-sector employment from December 2024 to December 2025, a change from the consistent, albeit slowing, growth that had marked the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. At the national level, private-sector employment experienced slow but still positive change (0.5%) over the same period (BLS-CES-SAE 2026).5

The widespread impact of the administration’s actions can be seen in the breadth of employment declines across racial, ethnic, gender, and age groups in the region. As shown in Table 1, the employment rate fell by at least 2 percentage points for every demographic category of workers in the DMV. Notably, young workers under age 25 (-4.3 percentage points), workers age 55 and older (-3.3 percentage points), men (-3.5 percentage points), and Black workers (-5.9 percentage points) all experienced drops in their employment rates larger than the regional average. For older workers, the above-average decline likely reflects, at least in part, the firings and retirements of many federal employees, including many who had been near retirement age and opted into the so-called “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation program. For young workers, the administration’s funding and programmatic cuts directly reduced many traditional Beltway early-career opportunities (internships, fellowships), while weakness in the broader regional economy simultaneously forced area employers to pull back on entry-level positions.

Still, not all groups have been equally affected by Trump’s actions. As Table 1 shows, Black workers in the DMV region have suffered the largest employment declines, with the share employed falling by 5.9 percentage points in 2025. This is nearly triple the employment drop experienced by white workers (2.0 percentage points) in the region and, notably, more than seven times the employment drop of Black workers throughout the country overall (0.8 percentage points). Again, this is a direct consequence of the administration’s attacks on the federal workforce. Black workers have long tended to make up a larger share of the public sector than they do in the private sector—both in the DMV and across the country. This is because the public sector has historically been a pathway to the middle class for workers of color who face labor market discrimination in the private sector (Maye and Marvin 2025).

Trump’s massive cuts to federal employment have also rapidly undone what had been considerable progress in shrinking the regional Black-white employment gap. Figure A shows the employment rate of DMV workers, overall and by race/ethnicity, since the end of 2018. The rapid drop in the Black employment rate since the start of President Trump’s second term is striking, bringing the regional Black employment rate back down to its pandemic-era low. It is also notable that before that drop began, Black workers in the region were employed at essentially the same rate as their white counterparts—the only time in the last two decades when that occurred. These losses in employment will exacerbate existing racial and gender inequity across wages, poverty, and unemployment (Markoff and Zielinski 2026; Zielinski 2025; Busette and Elizondo 2022).

Recent increases in the DMV’s overall unemployment rate underscore the damage Trump is doing to the region. The non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate jumped more than a full percentage point, from 3.1% in January 2025 to 4.4% in January 2026—more than four times the increase in the national figure. (Importantly, this increase understates the weakening of the area labor market, as the BLS estimates the DMV labor force shrank by 3% over the same period—meaning that many workers who would have been counted as unemployed simply left the area labor force.) For comparison, the national non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased by less than half a percentage point, moving from 4.4% in January 2025 to 4.7% in January 2026 (BLS-LAUS 2026).

These numbers do not capture the full extent of the economic downturn in the DMV area, nor can they give us precise insight into where the pain has been most acutely felt. The administration’s violent deportation agenda, for example, will lead to a drop in immigrant and U.S.-born Hispanic workers’ employment, but resulting changes in Hispanic employment rates may be muted by the corresponding shrinking of the overall Hispanic population (Zipperer 2025). In other words, while the overall Hispanic population in the U.S. may fall dramatically in coming years, the ratio of remaining employed workers to remaining total population may stay somewhat consistent. This will mask the true scale of the economic and social harm being done to immigrant communities in the DMV and across the country.

It is also difficult to fully quantify how the deployment and continued presence of National Guard troops, violent immigration actions, and other authoritarian, fear-inducing tactics have impacted D.C.-area businesses, workers, and families, particularly in neighborhoods with predominately Black and Latino populations. Early data show regional declines in tourism, consumer spending, and foot traffic; harder to capture are the emotional and long-term economic consequences (Montgomery 2025; Hadden Loh and Haskins 2025; Sachs and Cocco 2025). Other recent analyses estimate similar economic harms in cities where targeted federal immigration enforcement actions have been aggressively deployed (Rosenthal and Sojourner 2026). A full accounting of the Trump administration’s harms on the Washington, D.C., region will take years to document.

Other localities should brace for similar consequences

Some of the Trump administration’s actions and their acute consequences are unique to the DMV, a function of the region’s high concentration of federal employees and government contractors, as well as the District of Columbia’s lack of statehood and full constitutional rights. However, the anti-government attacks the administration has unleashed on DMV-area households, workers, and businesses will have cascading consequences for communities throughout the country. The effects of the administration’s authoritarian attacks on the civil service, democratic institutions, and immigrants (Human Rights Watch 2026) that first registered across the DMV should be viewed as a preview of the consequences that will be felt in other regions. While no locality will be spared, regions particularly at risk include those with large shares of government workers (especially federal workers, but state and local government workers too), localities in which federal funding and social safety net programs make up a large portion of total area income, and those with large immigrant populations.

Trump’s attacks on the federal workforce will harm communities that rely on their employment

The day Trump returned to power in January 2025, he began attacking the federal workforce, first by moving to reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees to make it easier to fire and replace them with political loyalists (EPI 2026c), and then by stripping more than one million federal workers of their collective bargaining rights (EPI 2025a). The Trump White House subsequently worked feverishly to slash federal employment, attempting large and chaotic reductions in force, shuttering entire agencies, and coercing tens of thousands of staff to resign, among many other attacks (Poydock 2025). As of March 2026, the administration’s actions have reduced nationwide federal government employment by over 350,000 (11.7%) since January 2025 (Gould 2026).

Though federal workers make up a sizeable share of the DMV’s workforce, over 80% of federal workers live outside the region (Partnership for Public Service 2024). For instance, in Alaska, Hawaii, and New Mexico—states that are home to large swaths of federal and Native land, military bases, and federal research institutions—federal workers make up at least 4.5% of total employment (EPI 2025c). Within states, federal workers tend to be concentrated in specific localities. For instance, in Apache County, Arizona, which is largely made up of the Navajo Nation and the White Mountain Apache Reservations, lands that extend beyond county lines, the federal government employs 12% of the county’s workers, more than double the next most significant county for federal worker employment in the state (EPI 2025c). There are 22 U.S. counties, spread across the South, Midwest, and West Census regions, where federal workers comprise at least 10% of the county’s workforce (see Table 2).

In these counties and elsewhere, federal workers are the backbone of the regional economy, both through the essential services they provide and through their contributions to the local economy. Trump’s attacks simultaneously threaten federal workers’ livelihoods and the economic health of communities in which these workers’ spending on goods and services makes up a large share of economic activity in the region. In Apache County, Arizona, civilian government workers’ earnings comprise 11.7% of total economic activity in the county (see Table 3)—roughly the same as their share of overall county employment. However, in some counties, federal employees’ earnings are a disproportionate share of the regional economic base. For instance, in Leavenworth County, Kansas, where federal employees make up 10.0% of employment (Leavenworth has a large federal prison), federal civilian earnings comprise 22.1% of total income in the county.

The effects from lost federal jobs and income in these regions could be devastating. Some of these communities are places that have already faced historic disinvestment and in which there are few local employment opportunities that can match the quality of federal government jobs. These jobs are historically stable, good quality, union jobs that offer a pathway to the middle class, particularly for workers without a college education.6

Regions highly dependent on federal revenue will also suffer from a reduction in services and a loss of income

Beyond the harm to localities from reductions in the federal workforce, localities that are particularly reliant on federal government revenue and services will bear the consequences of Trump’s actions most acutely, though no locality will be spared from harm. For example, the Trump administration has announced or considered $23 billion in cuts to federal clean energy projects in nearly every state (CATF 2025) and $8 billion in cuts to colleges and universities that will impact every state’s economy (Bedekovics and Ragland 2025). Trump’s 2025 budget bill also made massive cuts to federal safety net programs that millions of low-income households rely on in order to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest households and corporations.

Funds from federal programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and other social programs not only help struggling families make ends meet, they also comprise a significant share of a locality’s “economic base,” the amount of money circulating in that region, as shown by sociologist Robert Manduca in a recent working paper (2025). Indeed, an often-overlooked benefit of Medicaid coverage is its role as a source of income for low-income households (money they would have had to spend on medical care in the absence of Medicaid). For the bottom 20% of households in the U.S., Medicaid comprised 70% of their total money income, based on recent data from the Congressional Budget Office (Bivens, Wething, and Morrissey 2025). In fact, government transfers such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid collectively made up 40% of the economic base of U.S. regions in 2022 (Manduca 2025). Substantial cuts to government social programs that support low-income households could reduce the economic base of these localities, at a scale equivalent, in many cases, to the loss of entire private industries in those areas.

Without deliberate intervention by state lawmakers to offset lost federal revenues, localities in every state face dire economic losses, but states particularly reliant on government transfers will suffer most. For instance, take Clay County, West Virginia, which is represented in Congress by Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV01), who voted in support of Trump’s budget bill (Miller 2025). Clay County’s poverty rate is more than double the national rate, and its per capita income is half the national amount (U.S. Census 2024a). Of the 10 U.S. counties that rely most on each of the largest federal social insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security) as a share of their economic base, Clay is the only county in the country to show up three times (see Table 4). Federal government transfers in the form of Medicare, SNAP, and Social Security payments comprise 57% of Clay County’s economic base, 20 times the share comprised by the earnings of every private industry in the county combined. Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia all have at least three counties that are ranked in the top 10 in the country for their reliance on a given social safety net program as a share of the county’s economic base (see Table 4).

Localities that have significant shares of federal workers and rely heavily on federal government transfers may face particularly significant consequences as a result of Trump’s attacks on the federal workforce and the Republican budget bill’s cuts to essential social safety net programs. For example, in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, and Apache County, Arizona, federal government workers make up 16.1% and 12.0% of all workers in the county, respectively (EPI 2025b). At the same time, both counties are ranked in the top-10 counties most reliant on federal government transfers—Apache is #2 for Medicaid, and Rio Arriba is #10 for SNAP. In Apache County, federal government transfers account for three-quarters (76.9%) of the county’s economic base, and the earnings of federal government civilian workers account for 11.7%—the Navajo Nation Tribal Government is the county’s largest employer (NACOG 2023). Meanwhile, private earnings account for a mere 2.8% of the county’s economy. In Apache, Trump’s cuts to both the federal workforce and federal government programs mean that the federal government may be unable to fulfill its legal obligations to tribal communities (Brown 2025) that have faced decades of disinvestment and depressed economic outcomes resulting from historic land theft and forced assimilation. Apache County’s poverty rate of 31.2% (AZ Economics 2026) is nearly triple the national rate of 11.1% in 2023 (Shrider 2024).

Trump’s anti-immigrant crackdown and deportation agenda hurt localities with large immigrant populations

Trump has launched a campaign of terror against immigrant communities, communities of color, and those who stand with them. Last summer, Trump federalized local police and deployed thousands of federal troops to diverse cities with large immigrant populations (Kim 2025). Though Washington, D.C., may have experienced the most visible federal troop presence, a function of the district’s lack of statehood and the president’s unchecked authority to mobilize the National Guard there (Dallas 2025), Los Angeles was the first city Trump targeted after public opposition to aggressive immigration raids (Kim 2025). It was soon followed by Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; New Orleans, Louisiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Portland, Maine.

These attacks are characteristic of an authoritarian playbook that includes forcing the leaders of diverse, opposition-led communities to bend to the strongman government’s will (McManus, Benson, and Herman 2024). Minneapolis, home to a large immigrant population, was subjected to an unprecedented immigration crackdown that drew widespread protests (Boone 2026). During “Operation Metro Surge,” as it was called, federal immigration enforcement officials made 4,000 arrests and killed two U.S. citizens. Though the true toll of this violent operation may never be fully quantified, initial economic data show clear cause for concern. A recent analysis estimated that Trump’s immigration crackdown has led to a 2.9% decline in consumer spending in Minnesota over a single month—the equivalent of the state’s economy losing $626 million (Rosenthal and Sojourner 2026). Relative to overall consumer spending, the food and accommodation sector (which employs a large share of immigrant workers) saw the most significant decline in January 2026—3.8% or a $46 million reduction in economic activity. Researchers also estimated that nearly 3% of workers in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region were unable to work during the occupation, resulting in a loss of over $100 million in wages (Sojourner and Rosenthal 2026).

Trump’s deportation agenda will continue to destabilize local communities and result in job losses for immigrant and U.S.-born residents alike (Zipperer 2025). Though immigrants live in counties across the U.S., coastal urban areas tend to have the largest shares of foreign-born residents. Counties with the largest foreign-born populations include Miami-Dade, Florida; Queens, New York; Aleutians, Alaska; and Hudson, New Jersey (see Table 5). Counties with relatively large shares of immigrants may see particularly acute harms from aggressive immigration enforcement.

Communities face overlapping economic threats from attacks on federal workers, the social safety net, and immigrants, but state and local lawmakers can resist them.

The Trump administration’s attacks on the federal workforce, the social safety net, and immigrant communities are designed to exacerbate economic precarity in many communities that are already struggling (Bivens 2026). The implementation of Trump’s authoritarian agenda in the DMV region may be the first, clearest, and in some cases most direct manifestation of its harms, but other localities across the country—particularly those with large federal workforces, those that are heavily dependent on federal revenue and those with sizeable immigrant populations—are far from immune, and many will suffer as much, if not more, from this agenda.

While state and local leaders cannot stop federal attacks, they do have the power to resist Trump’s agenda by improving state labor standards (EPI 2026b), advancing protections for immigrant workers (Díaz and Whitaker 2026), investing in the public-sector workforce (Bivens and Shierholz 2026), and using progressive tax policies (Austin and Davis 2025) to stabilize funding for critical social programs and other investments that workers, families, and communities need.

Notes

1. Throughout this report, unless explicitly noted, the source for all employment rate data is the authors’ analysis of Current Population Survey data (EPI 2026a). We compare an average of calendar year 2025 with calendar year 2024 in order to have adequate sample sizes for the noted demographic groups.

2. Employment level by industry and sector data come from the authors’ analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Employment Statistics (CES) State and Metro Area (SAE) data.

3. These numbers are calculated using monthly totals rather than annual averages. A quarterly comparison of 2025Q4 to 2024Q4 finds roughly the same results—employment fell by 52,600 jobs (13.9%). The quarterly analysis omits October in both years to maintain an apples-to-apples comparison, accounting for missing data due to the government shutdown that began in October 2025 and the subsequent lapse in Bureau of Labor Statistics funding.

4. The non-federal workforce includes private sector workers as well as state and local government employees.

5. These numbers are calculated using monthly totals rather than annual averages. Quarterly comparisons of 2025 Q4 to 2024 Q4 produce similar results—private sector employment fell by 0.1% in the DMV and grew by 0.7% nationally. The quarterly analysis follows the methodology outlined in note 2.

6. On average, federal workers with advanced degrees typically earn less in wages and total compensation than their private-sector counterparts. Federal workers without an advanced degree typically earn more than their private-sector counterparts and have access to retirement benefits that have become less common in the private sector (CBO 2024).

References

Austin, Sarah, and Carl Davis. 2025. The Wealth Proceeds Tax: A Simple Way for States to Tax the Wealthy. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, October 2025.

AZ Economics. 2026 “Apache County, Arizona.” U.S. Economic Research. Accessed April 2026.

Barrett, William P. 2025. “America’s Top 100 Charities: A Year of Pain After Trump Cuts.” Forbes, December 12, 2025.

Bedekovics, Gréta, and Will Ragland. 2025. Mapping Federal Funding Cuts to U.S. Colleges and Universities. Center for American Progress, July 2025.

Bivens, Josh. 2026. The Trump Administration’s Macroeconomic Agenda Harms Affordability and Raises Inequality. Economic Policy Institute, February 2026.

Bivens, Josh, and Heidi Shierholz. 2026. “You Can’t Starve the Public Sector to Excellence.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 27, 2026.

Bivens, Josh, Hilary Wething, and Monique Morrissey. 2025. Cutting Medicaid to Pay for Low Taxes on the Rich Is a Terrible Trade for American Families. Economic Policy Institute, February 2025.

Boone, Rebecca. 2026. “A Timeline of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown in Minnesota.” PBS Newshour, February 13, 2026.

Brookings Institution. 2026. “Active Residential For-Sale Listings,” DMV Monitor. Last updated February 18, 2026.

Brown, Alex. 2025. “For Indian Country, Federal Cuts Decimate Core Tribal Programs.” Stateline, March 4, 2025.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics State and Metro Area (BLS-CES-SAE). Various years. Public data series accessed through the CES State and Metro Area Databases and through series reports. Accessed April 2026.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (BLS-LAUS). Various years. Data from the LAUS are available through the LAUS database and through series reports. Accessed April 2026.

Busette, Camille, and Samantha Elizondo. 2022. “Economic Disparities in the Washington, D.C. Metro Region Provide Opportunities for Policy Action.” Commentary, Brookings Institution, April 27, 2022.

Clean Air Task Force (CATF). 2025. “The High Cost of Retreat: Impacts of Department of Energy Project Cuts.” Clean Air Task Force, November 21, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2024. Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees in 2022. Congressional Budget Office, April 2024.

Dallas, Kelsey. 2025. “The President’s Power to Deploy Troops Domestically: An Explainer.” SCOTUSblog, October 28, 2025.

D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. 2026. “Congressional Interference Will Cost D.C. Nearly $700 Million in Local Revenue and Jeopardize Efforts to Reduce Child Poverty.” D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, February 4, 2026.

Díaz, Marisa, and Mimi Whitaker. 2026. How States and Localities Can Strengthen Workplace Protections for Immigrant Workers. National Employment Law Project, January 2026.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Executive Order on ‘Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.’” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), December 17, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. How Many Federal Employees Live in Your State? Economic Policy Institute.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025c. “New Resource Calculates How Many Federal Workers Live in Every State, County, and Congressional District” Economic Policy Institute (press release). March 3, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026a. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 2026.3.11, https://microdata.epi.org.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026b. Holding the Line: State Solutions to the U.S. Worker Rights Crisis. Economic Policy Institute.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2026c. “OPM Finalizes Regulation Enabling Firing Federal Employees for Political Reasons.” Federal Policy Watch (Economic Policy Institute), March 4, 2026.

Friesenhahn, Erik. 2025. “Nonprofit Organizations: State and Regional Employment Trends.” Monthly Labor Review (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), March 2025. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2025.6.

Gould, Elise. 2026. “Attacks on the federal workforce continue (down 18k jobs in March).” Bluesky, @elisegould.bluesky.social, April 3, 2026, 9:01 a.m.

Hadden Loh, Tracy, and Glencora Haskins. 2025. Consumer Spending and Visitor Demand in the Washington, D.C. Region Are Dropping. Brookings Institution, December 2025.

Human Rights Watch. 2026. “Sliding Towards Authoritarianism?” January 2026.

Kim, Juliana. 2025. “Trump Says National Guard Will Soon Go to New Orleans. Here’s the Latest.” NPR, December 3, 2025.

Koma, Alex. 2025. “Here’s How D.C. Solved the Billion-Dollar Budget Problem Congress Created.” WAMU, October 22, 2025.

Kozlov, Max, Jeff Tollefson, and Dan Garisto. 2026. “U.S. Science After a Year of Trump.” Nature 649 (January): 812–815.

Lynch, Teresa M., and Robert Manduca. 2024. “Beyond Local and Traded: Evidence for a Third Industry Market Area Type and Implications for Regional Economic Development.” Economic Development Quarterly 38, no. 3: 183–194, July 2024. 

Manduca, Robert. 2025. Financial and Transfer Income as Components of the Regional Economic Base. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2025.

Markoff, Shira, and Connor Zielinski. 2026. Chronic Racial Inequality Holds Back Workers and Equitable Economic Growth. D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, March 2026.

Maye, Adewale A., and Stevie Marvin. 2025. “Trump Attacks on Federal Agencies Have Steep Implications for Black Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 10, 2025.

McManus, Allison, Robert Benson, and Dan Herman. 2024 “The Dangers of Project 2025: Global Lessons in Authoritarianism.” Center for American Progress, October 2024.

Miller, Carol. 2025. “Miller Votes to Send the One, Big, Beautiful Bill to President Trump’s Desk” (press release). Office of Congresswoman Carol Miller, West Virginia’s First District, July 3, 2025.

Montgomery, Mimi. 2025. “Trump Crackdown Is Affecting D.C.’s Image and Tourism Numbers.” Axios, August 29, 2025.

Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG). 2023. “Business, Jobs, and Industry Highlights for Apache County.” Northern Arizona Council of Governments, November 20, 2023.

Partnership for Public Service. 2024. Beyond the Capital: The Federal Workforce Outside the D.C. Area. March 2024.

Poydock, Margaret. 2025. “How Trump Has Dismantled the Federal Workforce in His First 100 Days.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 23, 2025.

Rosenthal, Aaron, and Aaron Sojourner. 2026. The Economic Impact of Operation Metro Surge in January 2026: A Synthetic Difference-in-Differences Analysis. North Star Policy Action, February 2026.

Sachs, Andrea, and Federica Cocco. 2025. “D.C. Tourism Was Already Struggling. Then the National Guard Arrived.” Washington Post, August 29, 2025.

Shrider, Emily A. 2024. Poverty in the United States: 2023. United States Census Bureau, Report Number P60-283, September 2024.

Singh, Kanishka. 2026. “Trump Signs Executive Order Asking Federal Contractors to Eliminate DEI.” Reuters, March 26, 2026.

Sojourner, Aaron, and Aaron Rosenthal. 2026. Impact of DHS Agent Surge on Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metro Area Labor Outcomes. North Star Policy Action, February 2026.

Tomasko, Laura, Hannah Martin, Katie Fallon, Mirae Kim, Lewis Faulk, and Elizabeth T. Boris. 2025. How Government Funding Disruptions Affected Nonprofits in Early 2025: Nationally Representative Findings from the Nonprofit Trends and Impacts Study. Urban Institute, October 2025.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024a. “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Retrieved from Census Reporter Profile Page for Clay County, WV.” Accessed April 14, 2026.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024b. “U.S. Foreign-Born Population: 2018–2022 American Community Survey, 5 Year-Estimates (Table B05006).” Accessed April 14, 2026.

Zielinski, Connor. 2025. “Inequality Remained Extreme in 2024 as D.C. Backslid on Poverty.” DCFPI Blog (D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute), September 15, 2025.

Zipperer, Ben. 2025. Trump’s Deportation Agenda Will Destroy Millions of Jobs: Both Immigrants and U.S.-Born Workers Would Suffer Lob losses, Particularly in Construction and Child Care. Economic Policy Institute, July 2025.

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was enacted on March 11, 2021. Among other provisions, ARPA allocated $350 billion for State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). SLFRF was a recognition of the stark reality that the COVID-19 pandemic had wreaked havoc on state and local government finances (McNicholas, Bivens, and Shierholz 2020). SLFRF was also a reflection of lessons that policymakers learned from recent history. In the years following the Great Recession, inadequate fiscal support to state and local governments resulted in massive budget cuts, public-sector job losses, and reduced spending that dragged on the economy, delaying economic recovery by years (Shierholz and Bivens 2013). With the prospect of potentially devastating COVID-19-induced state and local budget shortfalls, Congress and the Biden administration made the decision to spend at the scale of the problem by making sure SLFRF was large enough to meet its recipients’ needs.

Of the $350 billion in fiscal recovery funds, $195.3 billion went to state governments, $65.1 billion to counties, $45.6 million to cities, $20 billion to tribal governments, $4.5 billion to territories, and $19.5 to small units of local government, mostly towns and villages. They could use the funds for five purposes: responding to the public health emergency caused by COVID-19; responding to the negative economic impacts of COVID-19; providing premium pay to “essential” workers; improving water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure; and replacing public-sector revenue lost by the economic downturn that accompanied COVID-19. Recipient governments had until December 31, 2024, to obligate those funds and until December 31, 2026, to spend them.

By any objective assessment, SLFRF was a transformative success. It averted a potential crisis. It empowered state and local leaders to address long-standing community needs. It helped millions of working families. It saved lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The design and implementation of SLFRF offer many important lessons to future policymakers.

This report will highlight the smart design of SLFRF, which made it well positioned to address the needs of state and local governments in 2021 and beyond. The report will also note ways in which future policymakers could improve upon SLFRF’s design. The report will describe how SLFRF funds were deployed, showcasing the breadth and variety of uses to which they were put. State and local fiscal recovery funds were a vital part of the U.S. economic recovery post-2020. They provide a shining example of what government can achieve when it has adequate resources, and when the needs of communities and families are the main drivers of investment decisions.

SLFRF played a vital role in preventing a second Great Recession

The pandemic recession that began so suddenly in March 2020 was the biggest economic shock the country has seen since the Great Recession that started in 2008. Comparing the distinctly different policy responses to those two crises demonstrates how important SLFRF was to speeding the economic recovery and to preventing a second Great Recession.

First, SLFRF was vital in preserving and rebuilding the public-sector workforce. In the wake of the Great Recession, state and local governments faced devastating budget cuts that resulted in significant reductions in staffing and services. All faced fiscal crises because of sharp revenue declines caused by the Great Recession, but public services were further strained in many states by deliberate policy decisions, predominantly by Republican-controlled state governments, to cut taxes and slash public services (Cooper, Gable, and Austin 2012). State and local government employment peaked in July 2008, then fell for five straight years. It took a total of 11 years to reach July 2008 levels again (Cooper 2020). By contrast, the peak in state and local governments jobs before the pandemic was in February 2020. By October 2023—just three years and eight months later—state and local public sector employment had fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

In the first year following the passage of ARPA, there is evidence that the pace of a state’s SLFRF spending was positively correlated to the recovery of its public workforce:

Table 1

After that, the direct correlation between SLFRF spending and public-sector jobs faded, but that is hardly surprising, given all the other variables that impact job markets.

Second, this rapid recovery mirrored the recovery of the overall job market. The typical U.S. state needed 77 months after the start of the Great Recession for its job numbers to recover; it only took 29 months after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic for the same level of recovery. Of course, SLFRF was hardly the biggest factor in the overall economic recovery, but Cooper (2020) has shown that disinvestment in the public sector drags on growth in the private sector as well, and on economic growth overall. SLFRF supported conditions that made the private-sector economic recovery possible.

Third, SLFRF allowed states and localities to enact programs of social insurance and income support that directly responded to immediate community needs. In just the first two years of SLFRF’s operation alone, more than 4.5 million households received mortgage, rent, or utility assistance. Emergency programs offered housing to people who had been displaced by the pandemic and direct government assistance to food pantries and other programs that helped people facing food insecurity. These programs were valuable tools for helping working families in need.

Fourth, SLFRF has helped state and local governments and communities become more resilient against future downturns. Many states upgraded their unemployment insurance (UI) systems to make it easier to cope with an influx of claimants in the future. Some local governments created greater tenant protections and used recovery funds to give tenants facing eviction the right to free legal counsel. Several cities invested in pre-apprenticeship programs to help people in underserved communities gain access to high-quality infrastructure and climate jobs. These investments and others like them will help state and local governments to quickly distribute social insurance benefits when the next crisis hits and provide additional safety for working families put in jeopardy through job loss, illnesses, or natural disasters. (Kamper 2025).

SLFRF’s innovative program design meant funds could be used where they did the most good

The SLFRF program had two unusual characteristics that helped make it successful.

First, unlike previous iterations of state and local aid, SLFRF funds went directly to individual state and local governments. While payments to smaller cities were distributed first to states and then passed on to those cities, states were prohibited from imposing conditions on that distribution and could not hold back the payments; their role was purely administrative.

On previous occasions when federal money was allocated to local governments, it was much more common for the state government to hold federal aid on behalf of local governments. This was, for example, the mechanism behind the COVID-19-era financial assistance to school districts: the Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER, which had three iterations in 2020 and 2021, called ESSER I, ESSER II, and ESSER III respectively). A state’s department of education held ESSER funds and only parceled them out to school districts after the district had made a qualifying expenditure. The districts were not free to spend ESSER funds on their own. With SLFRF, however, recipients received funds before they needed to make expenditures and had complete control over how to use them.

This leads to a second important characteristic of SLFRF: Recipients were given broad latitude in how to use their funds. Under the legislation and the rules put out by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, SLFRF could be used for:

1. responding to the public health emergency caused by COVID-19
2. responding to the negative economic impacts of COVID-19
3. providing premium pay to “essential” workers
4. improving water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure
5. replacing public-sector revenue lost by the economic downturn that accompanied COVID-19

In 2023, the eligible uses for local governments were broadened to include government-built (or renovated) housing, surface transportation projects, and natural disaster relief, though in the end only a small share of recovery funds was used for those purposes.

Treasury rules also made the process simpler for smaller local governments by allowing up to $10 million to be used as public-sector revenue replacement without having to account for specific losses of funding—the SLFRF equivalent of the standard deduction on one’s taxes. Those rules also made clear that “negative economic impacts” could include existing inequities that predated the pandemic, such as long-standing racial employment and wage gaps (Economic Policy Institute 2025).

The combination of these two characteristics—state and local governments had the money within their control before making spending decisions, and great latitude in how to use it—meant that recipients could tailor the focus and pace of SLFRF spending to meet particular local needs. Given the extremely fluid state of the pandemic and the economy when ARPA was passed, this was the right decision to meet the pressing needs of the COVID-19 crisis. Overly prescriptive rules or additional bureaucratic hurdles to accessing and disbursing funds would have made it much harder for state and local recipients to respond rapidly to their specific needs.1

Lessons to apply for future policy design

Despite the great freedom given to recipients to use SLFRF in ways that best met their needs, of the roughly 31,000 local government recipients, almost 600 local government recipients did not report using their fiscal recovery funds at all and a further 600 reported using less than 99%. Another 220 local governments failed to file a single report on their use of fiscal recovery funds, and 1,089 more have been delinquent in filing for at least a year.

At least part of the explanation is that while ARPA guidance allowed for fiscal recovery funds to be used for myriad reasons, recipients (especially smaller local governments) with little experience in receiving money directly from the federal government often struggled to understand Treasury rules on allowed uses of funds. Unlike state governments with experienced personnel deeply versed in Treasury’s complex rules and how to navigate them, many local governments had no such in-house expertise. Advocacy organizations reported, again and again, that even in 2024, as the deadline to obligate ARPA funds was approaching, many local policymakers were still raising questions about how funds could be used and what was allowed (Rochford, Bauer, and Wallace 2024).

Relatedly, Treasury officials who talked with EPI noted that many of the smallest local governments did not have a website or internal email system. Because all SLFRF reporting was supposed to be done electronically, some of these recipients struggled to properly report their expenditures. Sometimes the departure of a single municipal official created significant problems because that person was the only one who knew the electronic passwords.

An abundance of reports from across the country make clear recipients struggled to choose from among many appealing options, creating a kind of paralysis of choice. This is completely understandable; the needs communities were facing at this time were myriad and diverse, and prior to SLFRF, most local government officials had likely never had access to such flexible resources before then.

These challenges were exacerbated because the Treasury Department made a conscious decision not to offer specific technical assistance regarding recipient governments’ possible uses of fiscal recovery funds. When local government officials reached out to Treasury to seek guidance on whether a particular idea was within the scope of the law, Treasury rarely offered definitive answers. This was understandable given that more than 31,000 governmental units received their own fiscal recovery funds; Treasury could not possibly handle detailed queries from more than a fraction of them. What this meant, though, is that many opportunities to use fiscal recovery funds in innovative and imaginative ways were missed. Many local governments chose caution over ambition, out of fear that particular uses of the funds would not be permitted and the funds rescinded.

To prevent a similar situation in the future, policy designers might do well to study Colorado’s Regional Grant Navigator program. Colorado chose 13 community and nonprofit organizations across the state to help local governments find ways to best access funds from the 2021 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. These navigators helped local governments understand the complex regulations around the laws, helped them design proposals to apply for funding, and offered advice on which programs might be best suited to the needs of those communities (Colorado n.d.). A similar model might allow local governments to get unbiased and timely assistance from organizations committed to helping them make the most of their funds.

A final challenge of the SLFRF policy design was the lack of clear definition of what “obligating” the funds meant. As advocates, policymakers, and others reported throughout 2022, 2023, and 2024, many local governments understood “obligation” to mean something similar to “budgeting” or “allocating”—making a formal decision as to how to use the funds (Kamper 2024). Recipients unfamiliar with the language used by Treasury could and did make that mistake. It was not until May of 2024 that Treasury explicitly stated in a webinar that “obligating” funds is not the same thing as budgeting (Treasury 2024). “Obligation” required not just a budgetary decision, but concrete steps to implement the decision, such as signing a contract with a vendor or an interagency agreement to send the funds to a particular department. Future fiscal recovery efforts should be more conscious of the need to clearly define terms, especially when plain-language definitions may not match Treasury’s technical definition.

How were fiscal recovery funds used?

General spending trends

The primary use of fiscal recovery funds—approximately 50% of state allocations and 60% of local government allocations—was revenue replacement, (replacing state and local funds that were lost because the economic shock of COVID-19 reduced tax and fee revenues). Revenue replacement had not been an allowed use of previous iterations of COVID-19 fiscal relief funds. Most notably the CARES Act, the first COVID-19 relief measure passed in 2020, did not allow use of Coronavirus Relief Funds for revenue replacement.

State and local governments face considerable constraints on their ability to raise revenues. Measures like Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights and California’s Proposition 13 often prohibit states from raising taxes or require legislative supermajorities to do so (Jefferson 2025). Local governments face even more constraints, with few policy levers available to raise revenues. As such, any shock to state and local government revenues can take a long time to reverse, a lesson we learned in the aftermath of the Great Recession. By allowing revenue replacement, SLFRF made it much easier for state and local governments to maintain adequate levels of funding, even as the pandemic recession lowered income from taxes. Revenue replacement was an important innovation in ARPA that should be replicated in the future.

Although the interim rules for ARPA put out by Treasury soon after the law was enacted required complex accounting of lost revenue, the final Treasury rule made the process much easier. For amounts less than $10 million, recipients did not need to calculate lost revenue. They could simply designate funds as revenue replacement and use them as needed. The appeal of this rule to local governments is evident in data summarizing subsequent uses of SLFRF; the smaller a recipient government, the more likely they were to use their fiscal recovery funds for revenue replacement.

Table 2

After revenue replacement, the next most popular use of SLFRF was addressing negative economic impacts of the pandemic. Once again, the flexibility given to recipients under this category was almost certainly a key factor encouraging use of funds for such purposes.

Table 3

Infrastructure was the third-largest use of fiscal recovery funds, and here there is a notable regional variation—state and local governments in the South allocated a far greater share of their funds to infrastructure than those in the rest of the country. In particular, 82% of all state funds obligated for broadband were in Southern states (not shown in Figure A).

Figure A

Not only is water and sewer infrastructure essential for people’s health, these investments are vital to a well-functioning economy. As EPI has extensively documented in its Rooted in Racism series, Southern states have long underinvested in in basic physical infrastructure (Childers 2023–2025). These spending choices likely reflect, at least in part, a need to address the long-standing underinvestment in the region—underinvestment driven by Southern lawmakers’ antipathy toward raising adequate revenue.

Aside from infrastructure spending in the South, there are no clear regional trends in how fiscal recovery funds were used. This is not surprising, given the flexibility of the funding (a feature EPI has long supported) (Bivens 2020). When ARPA was enacted in early 2021, there was simply no way for the federal government, or state and local governments, to know what their needs would be. ARPA’s flexibility was the right decision. The ability of recipient governments to immediately fill unanticipated budget holes via revenue replacement meant hundreds of thousands of state and local jobs were preserved, vital public programs were maintained, and a deeper economic crisis averted. The most notable success of ARPA SLFRF lies in what did not happen: a collapse in basic public services, massive long-term unemployment, and an extended economic depression.

Innovative SLFRF investments supported working families

In all, SLFRF funded more than 159,000 different projects across the country. Some were gigantic, like a $787 million program in New Jersey to provide rental assistance to low- and moderate-income tenants, and some were very small, like the $28 that St. Clair County, Michigan, provided to help renovate the Port Huron Township Museum.

There are many examples of state and local governments using fiscal recovery funds to make transformative investments to build an economy that supports working families. Several types of uses deserve special attention: fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, investing in public health, and addressing problems with food access and nutrition.

First, ARPA SLFRF went a long way to address the health emergency the country faced in 2021. States, cities, and counties were on the front lines of keeping people safe, providing access to new vaccines once they became available, and saving lives throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over $1.8 billion in SLFRF was used to test, trace, and vaccinate people against COVID-19. Much of this money was used to deal with the practical and logistical challenges of testing and vaccination. Cities and counties, especially, bought personal protective equipment for government employees, especially first responders. Scores of governments purchased testing kits and lab equipment and worked to engage the public to encourage vaccination and tracing outbreaks. For example, Milan, Illinois, rented a meeting hall in town for $43,200 to host their vaccine clinic. Jefferson County, Missouri, hired a nurse for every public school district to oversee a contact-tracing program to track COVID-19’s progress through schools. Monroe County, Indiana, was one of many governments that instituted wastewater monitoring to check for COVID-19 surges While any individual expenditure may seem minor, together these measures did much to reduce COVID-19 infections and deaths.

Second, SLFRF allowed recipient governments to make long-term upgrades to infrastructure that both mitigated COVID-19 threats and made public spaces permanently safer, healthier, and more accessible. Almost $4.3 billion was obligated to upgrade the air quality and safety of public and private facilities. At least 550 projects upgraded HVAC systems in schools, nursing homes, public buildings, and correctional facilities. Governments invested in digital communications tools to reduce the need for in-person meetings. Typical examples include Peoria, Arizona, which allocated $124,996 to install touchless drinking fountains in public buildings, and Stafford County, Virginia, which spent $115,255 to add a glass partition to the entrance of the Commissioner of Revenue’s office so that the administrative staff could be protected from visitors’ virus transmission.

The freedom given to local governments to innovate was particularly evident in the way multiple localities sought to address problems related to food access and nutrition—an issue that has received tremendous public attention resulting from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s plan to establish municipally operated grocery stores. While one commentator claimed such a project would resemble “the old Soviet Union” (McArdle 2025), the fact is that many SLFRF recipients used public funds to increase access to food for low-income communities, including by opening their own stores.

For example:

• Sioux Falls, South Dakota, set up a mobile grocery market that would operate in underserved parts of the city.
• The small town of Cutler, Illinois, set up a Community Commissary to make it easier to buy food without having to travel a long way.
• Branson, Colorado (population 74 in the 2010 census), constructed a community greenhouse to grow and sell fresh fruits and vegetables for the town and school.
• Charleston, West Virginia, opened a community grocery store that would provide access to fresh groceries for 14,000 residents, and the city of Austin, Texas, did something similar.

There were, in addition, scores of grants to food pantries and other nonprofits that help people find the food they need. The proposal for New York City fits well with how these communities used SLFRF to address food access.

Above are just a handful of the tens of thousands of useful projects made possible by fiscal recovery funds. Some uses were more effective than others, however. For example, although modernizing state unemployment insurance systems was a useful endeavor (see above), more than $22 billion was also spent replenishing state unemployment insurance trust funds, which was unnecessary. UI trust funds hold UI taxes paid by businesses, to make sure funds are available to pay UI claims during spikes in unemployment. While those funds had, indeed, been depleted by the pandemic recession, state UI trust funds are designed to be self-correcting.2 They have automatic mechanisms to raise employer payroll taxes when the trust fund has been drawn down, to rebuild the funds and be prepared for future downturns. It was wholly unnecessary to use fiscal recovery funds to refill trust funds that would have returned to full strength on their own. Spending SLFRF to refill trust funds was a missed opportunity to support economic growth and strengthened public services (Banerjee, Martinez Hickey, and Sawo 2021). Future fiscal recovery projects should not make refilling UI trust funds an allowed use, though they should continue to support modernization of and upgrades to UI systems.

SLFRF accomplished its goals without driving inflation

Finally, it is worth noting that, despite politically motivated claims to the contrary, there is little evidence that SLFRF, or indeed the entire $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, was a significant contributor to inflation. As Bivens, Banerjee, and Dzholos (2022) show, the rise in inflation starting in 2022 was a global phenomenon, one that impacted countries, regardless of whether they provided fiscal relief to their economies during COVID-19. Nor was inflation correlated with the rapid decrease in unemployment the U.S. saw, thanks in part to ARPA. Rather, inflation was primarily driven by the dramatic supply shocks to various sectors of the economy caused by COVID-19, and then exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Given the scale of the crisis policymakers were confronted with in early 2021, they were right to spend at the scale of the problem, and critiques blaming that spending for inflation are not backed up by the data. Moreover, policy measures that prioritized lowering inflation would have led to either lower employment or lower real wage growth, as there was no policy option that would have lowered inflation, increased wage gains, and supported the strong job growth of 2021–2024 (Bivens 2024).

Conclusion

ARPA’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund was a great success. By spending at the scale of the problem, the federal government aided the economic recovery, supported the maintenance of public services, and gave myriad governments the chance to make innovative choices that have improved the well-being of their communities. A smaller SLFRF would have slowed our economic recovery and made governments more cautious about enacting bold policies to protect working families.

By giving recipient governments so much flexibility in using the funds, the Biden administration allowed every state, county, city, territory, and tribal government to fashion the response most appropriate to their particular needs. When faced with a crisis that had so much unpredictability, this was the right decision.

We don’t know when the next economic downturn, global pandemic, or climate disaster will hit. Whenever it does, federal policymakers should seek to emulate the model set by ARPA.

Notes

1. The devastating Flint, Michigan, water crisis of the 2010s is a prime example of a situation in which too many bureaucratic hurdles worsened a disaster. Flint was facing a serious fiscal crisis and therefore lacked the internal capacity to apply for federal funding (which they would have received) that might have prevented lead contamination of the water supply. See GAO 2015 for more details.

2. At least they should be, provided policymakers have set adequate UI tax base rates. See Perez 2025 for more information.

References

Banerjee, Asha, Sebastian Martinez Hickey, and Marokey Sawo. 2021. “States Are Choosing Employers over Workers by Using COVID Relief Funds to Pay Off Unemployment Insurance Debt: Policymakers Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Increase Taxes on Employers to Improve Unemployment Insurance.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), November 19, 2021.

Bivens, Josh. 2020. “Getting Serious About the Economic Response to COVID-19.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 9, 2020.

Bivens, Josh. 2024. “The Post-Pandemic Recovery Is an Economic Policy Success Story: Policymakers Took the Best Way Through a Rocky Path.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 1, 2024.

Bivens, Josh, Asha Banerjee, and Mariia Dzholos. 2022. “Rising Inflation Is a Global Problem: U.S. Policy Choices Are Not to Blame.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 4, 2022.

Callaghan, Peter. 2021. “The Minnesota Legislature Approved $250 Million for Pandemic Worker Bonuses. Should the State Give Away More Than That?” Minnpost, August 12, 2021.

Callaghan, Peter. 2022. “How the Legislature’s Deal on Pandemic Worker Bonuses and Unemployment Insurance Got Done.” Minnpost, May 4, 2022.

Childers, Chandra. 2023–2025. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation (report series). Economic Policy Institute, October 2023–June 2025.

Colorado, State of. n.d. “Regional Grant Navigators” (web page). Accessed December 3, 2025.

Cooper, David. 2020. “Without Federal Aid, Many State and Local Governments Could Make the Same Budget Cuts That Hampered the Last Economic Recovery.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 27, 2020.

Cooper, David, Mary Gable, and Algernon Austin. 2012. The Public-Sector Jobs Crisis: Women and African Americans Hit Hardest by Job Losses in State and Local Governments. Economic Policy Institute, May 2012.

Economic Policy Institute. 2025. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the United States: An Interactive Chartbook. Economic Policy Institute. October 2025.

Jefferson, Rita. 2025. Anti-Tax Revolts Backfire: What We’ve Learned from 50 Years of Property Tax Limits. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, July 2025.

Kamper, Dave. 2025. “Some States and Localities Will Be Better Prepared to Fight a Possible Recession Because of How They Used ARPA Fiscal Recovery Funds.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 30, 2025.

Kamper, Dave, and Emma Cohn. 2024. “Time Is Running out for State and Local Governments to Obligate American Rescue Plan Funds.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 17, 2024.

McArdle, Megan. 2025. “Zohran Mamdani Has a Seriously Bad Idea—for Grocery Stores.” Washington Post, July 1, 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, Josh Bivens, and Heidi Shierholz. 2020. “The Next Coronavirus Relief Package Should Provide Aid to State and Local Governments, Protect Employed and Unemployed Workers, and Invest in Our Democracy.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 27, 2020.

Perez, Daniel. 2025. Holding the Line: Unemployment Insurance. Economic Policy Institute, September 29, 2025.

Rochford, Patrick, Julia Bauer, and Michael Wallace. 2024. “Obligate It or Lose It! Preparing for the Upcoming ARPA SLFRF Obligation Deadline.” National League of Cities, October 1, 2024.

Shierholz, Heidi, and Josh Bivens. 2013. “Four Years into Recovery, Austerity’s Toll Is at Least 3 Million Jobs.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), July 3, 2013.

U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). 2024. “State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: New Obligation FAQs Webinar” (web page). Accessed December 3, 2025.

U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). 2025. “Public Data: State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds” (web page). Accessed December 11, 2025.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2015. Municipalities in Fiscal Crisis: Federal Agencies Monitored Grants and Assisted Grantees, but More Could Be Done to Share Lessons Learned. Publication number 15-222, March 2015.

Wakeley, Dev. 2021. “Alabama Is Making a Costly Mistake on COVID-19 Recovery Funds. Here’s a Better Path Forward.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), November 8, 2021.

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.

• Allowing the ACA credits to expire would lead to more than 200 preventable Black deaths each year. These deaths stem directly from the loss of affordable coverage and reduced access to timely care. 
• Black families would pay $740 million more in annual premium costs. Black families who are able to keep their health insurance would be squeezed by higher health care costs, further straining already tight household budgets.
• Local economies in major metros with large Black populations would lose more than $1.9 billion each year. Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas metros would lose the most economic activity as federal subsidies disappear and household spending contracts because families must redirect more of their income toward higher premiums and away from spending on local goods and services. 

Table 1

Allowing the ACA premium tax credits to expire would make it harder for U.S. families to access health care, worsen an ongoing affordability crisis, and negatively impact local economies. These shocks would be felt acutely by Black workers and their families because they reflect longstanding structural inequities that influence who has access to affordable health care. Black workers are less likely to hold jobs that provide employer-provided health insurance, more likely to live in states that did not expand Medicaid, and more likely to skip or delay medical care due to costs. Moreover, ending the tax credits would reduce economic activity and lower productivity in the cities where Black families live.

The pursuit of equity in this moment requires us to hold fast to the gains we have made thus far, both to limit the suffering of as many U.S. families as possible and to help us build toward further progress. Acting to extend the ACA premium tax credits until such a time that health costs can be significantly reduced is smart, responsible, and race-conscious economic and public health policy.

Note

1. Pre-Trump economic conditions were examined in these 10 metro areas in EPI’s “A tale of 10 cities” report, which discusses various threats imposed by the Trump administration’s historic rollback of federal, civil, and workers’ rights protections. The underlying methodology combines Census microdata, federal Marketplace enrollment data, and state-level projections of coverage loss. The forthcoming report will provide complete technical details.

For well over a decade now—time and time and time and time again—Congress has been making policy changes to temporary work visa programs not through the normal process of debating and passing legislation, but through a backdoor process. This involves amendments to annual appropriations legislation (known as “riders”) that fund the U.S. government. Riders that make policy changes are much more likely to pass without much public notice, debate, or pushback relative to dedicated legislation, since they are smaller parts of larger, must-pass legislation to fund the whole U.S. government. The significant changes proposed or passed in riders over the past decade have all pushed temporary work visa programs in the same direction: expanding and deregulating the H-2A and H-2B visa programs, which benefits employers at the expense of U.S. workers and hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who will continue to see reduced wages and poorer working conditions. It’s already clear that low-wage work visa programs won’t be improved during the Trump administration; instead, they’ll be made much worse.

This fiscal year, there is a particular urgency around the riders to expand and deregulate the H-2A and H-2B visa programs, in light of the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort that is arresting and deporting workers at a breakneck pace, as well as canceling temporary immigration protections that provided work authorization to millions. The Trump administration got the ball rolling on this effort with a new proposed H-2A wage regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on October 2, 2025. This proposed regulation contains a stunning admission: The administration’s mass deportation effort is likely to raise food prices. DOL’s solution to this problem of the administration’s own creation is an irrational and anti-worker solution. Instead of pushing the administration from within to stop their campaign of mass deportation, DOL proposes to lower farmworker wages by $24 billion over the next 10 years.

Having seen this proposed rule, employers who are heavily reliant on migrant laborers—especially those in the hospitality, construction, and agricultural industries—can now be confident they have a friendly administration willing to dismantle labor standards and are lobbying furiously for more work visas that allow them to employ a vulnerable workforce. Employers are making the case that H-2 visas are “a workforce issue, not immigration,” as well as an essential service that must continue to function even during the recent government shutdown. A number of lawmakers and the Trump administration seem to agree.

The latest legislative vehicle that has a chance at furthering these goals is a rider that the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee proposed and passed. It was originally known as Amendment #1 but was later dubbed the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc amendment. As Politico Pro reported, “House appropriators from both parties came together…to back big changes to visa policies that would boost the number of seasonal workers who can come to the United States.” The rider was cosponsored by three Republicans and one Democrat (but the Democrat was Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), the recent recipient of a pardon from Trump for federal bribery charges). However, it’s worth noting that because rider passed by a voice vote, there is no on-the-record vote tally showing who voted for it.

The rider still has a long way to go before becoming law and will also depend on whether an omnibus government spending bill is ultimately passed for fiscal year 2026. As of the time of publication, the Senate has not yet released their version of a Homeland Security appropriations bill. To become law, the Senate would also have to adopt the same rider provision for it to become part of the broader omnibus appropriations legislation. Nevertheless, the rider is a statement of intent from legislators who are willing to go to bat for employers seeking new exploitable and underpaid migrant workers to replace their long-term immigrant workers who have been deported or lost status.

Below is a summary of the four major changes that the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc rider amendment would make to the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. Only the first major change is discussed in this explainer, but a follow-up to this blog post will discuss the other three changes. Under the rider:

• Employers would be permitted to hire H-2A farmworkers to fill year-round jobs.
• The H-2B visa program would be expanded by at least 100,000 workers relative to its size in 2024.
• H-2B workers employed at carnivals, traveling fairs, and circuses would be moved to the P visa program, a program that has no wage rules or worker protections and over which DOL has no formal oversight role.
• DHS would not be permitted to spend funds to implement the January 2024 regulation that incrementally improves rights and protections for H-2A and H-2B workers. This regulation allows them to be eligible for green cards through existing pathways and helps them more easily change employers, reducing the indentured nature of the visa programs, and requires additional scrutiny on employer applications if they’ve committed certain violations.

The H-2A program has expanded rapidly and is rife with abuse

Employers use the H-2A visa program to fill seasonal and temporary jobs in agriculture, after employers go through a (mostly pro forma) process to prove that they could not find an available U.S. worker to hire. There is no annual limit on the number of H-2A workers that can be hired, and H-2A has in recent years been the fastest-growing U.S. work visa program, tripling over the past decade. Figure A shows the three available data sets on H-2A job certifications, petitions, and visas, as well as an estimate of the total number of H-2A workers between 2015 and 2024, with 352,682 H-2A workers estimated to have been employed in the United States last year. The vast majority of H-2A workers are employed on crop farms, picking fruits and vegetables, and the average duration of an H-2A job is roughly six months.

Figure A

There have been countless exposés from journalists and advocates that reveal how H-2A farmworkers are indentured to their employers, frequently robbed, exploited, victimized, and trafficked, and how the main source of wage and hour violations on farms comes from employers breaking H-2A rules.

The rider adopted in the House would allow H-2A workers to be employed in year-round jobs—which is currently prohibited—expanding the scope of the program and allowing H-2A workers to fill jobs on dairy, livestock, and poultry and egg farms, as well as in nurseries and greenhouses and other nonseasonal agricultural occupations. This would be a major change to H-2A, and it has long been a demand of agribusiness.

Making H-2A year-round raises three key questions:

• How many permanent, year-round jobs might be impacted?
• How will farmworker wages be impacted?
• How much will the H-2A program expand?

There are 410,000 year-round jobs in agriculture

For an answer to the first question, see Table 1, which lists four of the major agricultural industries employing farmworkers year-round, the largest of which are greenhouse and dairy jobs. Together they total nearly 410,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The industries listed do not include the many year-round (or nearly year-round) jobs that can be found on crop farms, including equipment operators and supervisors. In total, it’s possible that up to one-third of the total 1.6 million full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture could be year-round.

Table 1

DOL’s new Adverse Effect Wage Rate will result in a pay cut for H-2A workers and U.S. workers that will line the pockets of employers by billions

Next, let’s consider what would happen to the wages of farmworkers in year-round occupations if the H-2A visa program were expanded to include them.

The wages of nearly all H-2A farmworkers are set by the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), unless the federal, state, or local hourly minimum wages are higher, or if there is an applicable local prevailing wage or collective bargaining agreement in place. The purpose of the AEWR is to ensure that H-2A workers are paid a wage that is consistent with U.S. wage standards and prevent adverse impacts of H-2A employment on the wages of farmworkers in the United States.

On October 2, 2025, DOL issued an interim final rule laying out a new AEWR methodology. A recent EPI post describes in detail how the new Trump AEWR will cut wage rates dramatically by using an inferior data set for agriculture and creating two artificial “skill levels,” which set H-2A wages at the 17th percentile of wages surveyed for farm occupations (skill level 1) and at the 50th percentile, which is the median of wages surveyed (skill level 2). EPI has also submitted a detailed comment to DOL critiquing the new Trump AEWR methodology. 

In the new AEWR, the Trump DOL also removes the previous H-2A program requirement that employers pay for 100% of housing costs for H-2A workers. In its stead, the new AEWR deducts a set amount out of every hour of an H-2A worker’s pay, to compensate the employer for H-2A housing costs. This shifts housing costs to H-2A workers who will have the added burden of paying for housing costs out of the already-low wages they earn. The housing deduction is subtracted from the AEWR—lowering a low wage even further—so low that in many states, the state minimum wage will be higher and become the de facto AEWR.

In total, DOL estimates that over $1.7 billion will be transferred from H-2A workers’ pockets back to farm employers under the new wage rule in 2026, amounting to $24 billion over the next 10 years as the program grows to over 500,000 jobs. EPI’s own estimates are that H-2A workers will see a wage cut of between $1.7 billion and $2.1 billion in 2026, depending on how state minimum wage laws are enforced. Reducing the AEWR for H-2A workers will also lower wages for U.S. farmworkers—one-third of whom are U.S.-born citizens, according to the latest DOL survey. A fall in the H-2A wage will increase demand for H-2A workers, since employers can save significantly on labor costs if they hire them. As a result, it will become relatively more expensive to hire non-H-2A U.S. farmworkers. Employers will therefore reduce demand for U.S. farmworkers, putting downward pressure on their wages, with U.S. farmworkers seeing wage reduction of $2.7 to $3.3 billion in annual pay.

This would represent a shocking upward redistribution of income away from some of the country’s most underpaid and essential workers for the food system.

Under the new AEWR, H-2A farmworkers in year-round jobs would be paid tens of thousands of dollars less annually compared with what U.S. farmworkers earn now

The wage cuts from the AEWR described above currently apply only to H-2A farmworkers, who can only be employed in seasonal jobs. However, if the rider to make H-2A year-round goes into effect, farmworkers in year-round jobs will see the biggest pay cuts.

Table 2 lists a sample of some of the main year-round agricultural industries in major agricultural states, along with average annual employment, which together accounts for about 15% of the total year-round full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture. Table 2 shows how much farmworkers earned annually, on average in 2024 in those industries and states, and compares the annual earnings of farmworkers in 2024 with what H-2A workers would earn in 2026 if they had worked in the same jobs and had been paid the corresponding 2026 AEWR at skill level 1 for the entire year (40 hours per week for 52 weeks), minus the annualized amount that will be deducted from hourly wages for housing according to the 2026 AEWR.1

The final column in Table 2 shows a few examples that illustrate the difference between what year-round U.S. farmworkers in the selected industries earned in 2024 and what H-2A workers at skill level 1 would earn if they were paid the annualized AEWR in 2026. Table 2 shows that the reduction in wages for H-2A farmworkers in year-round jobs could range from an annual pay cut of nearly $19,000 for farmworkers on dairy farms in Wisconsin to a pay cut of over $44,000 for farmworkers on poultry and egg farms in Texas.

Outcomes such as these—in which farmworkers paid the 2026 AEWR would earn tens of thousands of dollars less than what U.S. farmworkers earned in major year-round jobs in 2024—are egregious and in violation of the spirit and letter of the AEWR and the H-2A statute, but will be the norm and allowed if the year-round H-2A provision in the rider becomes law. This would hurt some of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in the U.S. labor market and create an almost unstoppable incentive for employers to replace their current farmworkers who now fill year-round jobs with H-2A workers who can’t easily switch employers or effectively complain when their wages are stolen and when they’re forced to work in unsafe conditions.

Table 2

The year-round H-2A rider with the new AEWR rule could triple the current size of the H-2A program and cause wages to drop sharply for farmworkers

The ultimate result of the new H-2A wage rule combined with making the H-2A program year-round would be a likely tripling of the size of the H-2A program to about 900,000 workers, which includes the complete decimation of job quality for the 410,000 jobs in agriculture that can provide stable year-round employment and sometimes a living wage for U.S. farmworkers.

How would this occur? The Trump DOL’s new wage rule estimates that the lower pay for farmworkers it institutes will encourage farms to rapidly increase hiring through the H-2A program, estimating that 515,000 H-2A workers will be employed in 2034. If those low wages remain in effect and the year-round H-2A rider becomes law and is renewed yearly (as the H-2B riders have been every year), employers are likely to ramp up hiring for year-round jobs until nearly all are filled by H-2A workers who can be paid extremely low wages and, because of their precarious immigration status, have little bargaining power or the ability to complain in the face of employer lawbreaking.

For context, the 410,000 H-2A workers in year-round jobs plus the estimated 257,500 year-round equivalent jobs done by H-2A workers in seasonal jobs (i.e., 515,000 H-2A workers employed in 2034 for six months out of the year), would equal 667,500 full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture, or roughly 42% of all annual average employment in agriculture.

Instead of ballooning the H-2A program, policymakers should create a pathway to citizenship for farmworkers to ensure their rights on the job

Policymakers and the public must reject the harmful and unjustified proposals coming from Trump and Congress to pay less to farmworkers who already live on the margins of society, and to keep more of them indentured through the H-2A program. This rider is another example that reveals the truth about the Trump administration’s immigration agenda: They have no real interest in protecting jobs or pay for American or “native-born” workers, only in giving employers what they demand.

Using H-2A, a problematic temporary work visa program—in which workers are virtually indentured to their employers and that accounts for most of the wage and hour violations that take place on farms—to fill permanent, year-round jobs should give pause to all members of Congress. It makes no sense, unless the goal is to keep the workers employed in those jobs from having equal rights and fair pay. If migrant workers are filling true labor shortages in permanent, year-round jobs, then those workers should always get lawful permanent residence (i.e., green cards) that puts them on a path to citizenship.

If members of Congress want a reliable, healthy, and stable farm labor force that can continue to produce food domestically for Americans, they should pass legislation that legalizes undocumented farmworkers and reforms the H-2A program so that all migrant farmworkers have equal rights, fair wages, and a quick path to permanent residence and citizenship. That’s the only way to ensure that the workers who sustain the food supply chain will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve and that honors their contributions to the U.S. economy.

1. The amounts have not been adjusted for inflation. The 2026 AEWR provides two “skill levels” for farmworkers—which are set at specific percentiles along the distribution of OEWS wages surveyed. Skill level 1 is the 17th percentile while skill level 2 is the median of wages surveyed, which is also the 50th percentile. For this calculation, I am only calculating the wage differentials for H-2A workers in year-round jobs who are classified by employers at skill level 1, which DOL estimates will account for 92% of all H-2A workers.

Summary  

The public has supported raising taxes on the ultrarich and corporations for years, but policymakers have not responded. Small increases in taxes on the rich that were instituted during times of Democratic control of Congress and the White House have been consistently swamped by larger tax cuts passed during times of Republican control. This was most recently reflected in the massive budget reconciliation bill pushed through Congress exclusively by Republicans and signed by President Trump. This bill extended the large tax cuts first passed by Trump in 2017 alongside huge new cuts in public spending. This one-step-forward, two-steps-back dynamic has led to large shortfalls of federal revenue relative to both existing and needed public spending.

Raising taxes on the ultrarich and corporations is necessary for both economic and political reasons. Economically, preserving and expanding needed social insurance and public investments will require more revenue. Politically, targeting the ultrarich and corporations as sources of the first tranche of this needed new revenue can restore faith in the broader public that policymakers can force the rich and powerful to make a fair contribution. Once the public has more faith in the overall fairness of the tax system, future debates about taxes can happen on much more constructive ground.

Policymakers should adopt the following measures:

• Tax wealth (or the income derived from wealth) at rates closer to those applied to labor earnings. One way to do this is to impose a wealth tax on the top 0.1% of wealthy households.
• Restore effective taxation of large wealth dynasties. One way to do this would be to convert the estate tax to a progressive inheritance tax.
• Impose a high-income surtax on millionaires.
• Raise the top marginal income tax rate back to pre-2017 levels.
• Close tax loopholes for the ultrarich and corporations.

Introduction

The debate over taxation in the U.S. is in an unhealthy state. The public is deeply distrustful of policymakers and doesn’t believe that they will ever put typical families’ interests over those of the rich and powerful. In tax policy debates, this means that people are often highly skeptical of any proposed tax increases, even when they are told it will affect only (or, at least, overwhelmingly) the very rich. People are also so hungry to see any benefit at all, no matter how small, that they are often willing to allow huge tax cuts for the ultrarich in tax cut packages if those packages include any benefit to them as well. The result has been a continued downward ratchet of tax rates across the income distribution.1 This is a terrible political dynamic for U.S. economic policy, given the pressing national needs for more revenue.

As countries get richer and older, the need for a larger public sector naturally grows.2 Yet the share of national income collected in taxes by the U.S. government has stagnated since the late 1970s. This has left both revenue and public spending in the United States at levels far below those of advanced country peers.3 This stifling of resources available for the public sector is not only inefficient but has led to frustration over its inability to perform basic functions. The political root of this suppression of resources for the public sector is a series of successful Republican pushes to lower tax rates for the richest households and corporations. This attempt to use tax policy to increase inequality has amplified other policy efforts that have increased inequality in pre-tax incomes, leading to suppressed growth in incomes and declining living standards for low- and middle-income households and a degraded public sector.4

In recent decades the dominant strategy for many on the center–left to combat the public’s tax skepticism is to pair tax increases with spending increases for programs that lawmakers hope will be popular enough to justify the taxes. This strategy has worked in the sense that some tax increases have been passed in the same legislation that paid for valuable expansions of income support, social insurance, and public investment programs in recent years. But this strategy has not stopped the damaging political dynamic leading to the sustained downward ratchet of tax revenue and the tax rates granted to the ultrarich and corporations.5

Part of the problem with a strategy of trying to attach tax increases to allegedly more popular spending increases is that it takes time for spending programs to become popular. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), for example, was not particularly popular in the year of its passage but has survived numerous efforts to dislodge it and has seemingly become more popular over time. Conversely, the expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC) that was in effect in 2021 and cut child poverty in half only lasted a single year, so there was little organic public pressure on Congress to ensure it continued.

In this report, we suggest another strategy for policymakers looking to build confidence in the broader public that tax policy can be made fairer: Target stand-alone tax increases unambiguously focused on ultrarich households and corporations as the first priority of fiscal policy. The revenue raised from this set of confidence-building measures can be explicitly aimed at closing the nation’s fiscal gap (the combination of tax increases or spending cuts needed to stabilize the ratio of public debt to national income).6 Once this gap has been closed with just highly progressive taxes, the public debate about the taxes needed to support valuable public investments and welfare state expansions should be on much more fruitful ground.

This approach takes seriously the work of scholars like Williamson (2017), who argue that the U.S. public is not rigidly “anti-tax.” Indeed, this public often views taxpaying as a civic responsibility and moral virtue. Yet they have become convinced that too many of their fellow citizens are not making a fair and adequate contribution. Part of this perception rests on underestimating the taxes paid by the poor and working people, but a good part of this perception also rests on the accurate impression that many rich households and corporations are not paying their fair share. Policy can change this latter perception, particularly if the policy is explicitly identified with ensuring that the rich and corporations—and only the rich and corporations—will see their taxes increase.

The rest of this report describes a number of tax policy changes that would raise revenue from the rich and corporations with extremely small (often zero) spillover into higher taxes for anybody else. It also provides rough revenue estimates of how much each could raise. It is not exhaustive, but it demonstrates that the nation’s current fiscal gap could certainly be closed with only taxes on the very rich. Making this policy agenda and target explicit could go a long way to restoring trust and improving the quality of the debate about taxes.

Targeting the ultrarich

The vast majority (often 100%) of the tax policy changes discussed below would only affect the taxes paid by the top 1% or above (those making well over $563,000 in adjusted gross income in 2024). Many of the taxes—and the vast majority of the revenue raised—will actually come from households earning well above this amount. We will be more specific about the incidence of each tax in the detailed descriptions below. The tax policy changes fall into two categories: increasing the tax rates the rich and ultrarich pay and closing the tax loopholes they disproportionately benefit from. We first present the tax rate changes, and we list them in declining order of progressivity.

Both the rate changes and the loophole closers disproportionately focus on income derived from wealth. By far the biggest reason why rich households’ tax contributions are smaller than many Americans think is appropriate has to do with rich households’ source of income. So much of these households’ income derives from wealth, and the U.S. federal tax system taxes income derived from wealth more lightly than income derived from work. If policymakers are unwilling to raise taxes on income derived from wealth, the tax system can never be made as fair as it needs to be.

Levying a wealth tax on the top 0.1% or above of wealthy households

The WhyNot Initiative (WNI) on behalf of Tax the Greedy Billionaires (TGB) has proposed a wealth tax of 5% on wealth over $50 million, with rates rising smoothly until they hit 10% at $250 million in wealth and then plateauing. With this much wealth, even a household making just a 1% return on their wealth holdings would receive an income that would put them in the top 1% of the income distribution. A more realistic rate of return (say, closer to 7%) would have them in the top 0.1% of income.

The $50 million threshold roughly hits at the top 0.1% of net worth among U.S. families, so this tax is, by construction, extremely progressive—only those universally acknowledged as extremely wealthy would pay a penny in additional tax. The WNI proposal also imposes a steep exit tax, should anybody subject to the tax attempt to renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying it.

The Tax Policy Center (TPC) has estimated that the WNI wealth tax could raise $6.8 trillion in additional net revenue over the next decade, an average of $680 billion annually. In their estimate, the TPC has accounted for evasion attempts and the “externality” of reduced taxes likely to be collected on income flows stemming from wealth holdings. Despite accounting for these considerations, the $6.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade could completely close the nation’s current estimated fiscal gap.

A key consideration in the long-run sustainability of revenue collected through a wealth tax is how quickly the tax itself leads to a decline in wealth for those above the thresholds of the tax. If, for example, the tax rate itself exceeded the gross rate of return to wealth, wealth stocks above the thresholds set by the tax would begin shrinking, and there would be less wealth to tax over time. The Tax Policy Center’s estimate includes a simulation of this decumulation process, assuming an 8.5% rate of return.7 It finds only very slow rates of decumulation.

Other simulation results (like those in Saez and Zucman 2019b) find faster decumulation for wealth taxes as high as this, but even their findings would still support the significant revenue potential of a wealth tax targeted at sustainability. Whereas the WNI wealth tax raises roughly 2.2% of GDP over the next 10 years, the Saez and Zucman (2019a) results highlight that over half this much could essentially be raised in perpetuity.8

It is important to note that even if revenue raised from any given wealth tax came in lower than expected due to the decumulation of wealth, this decumulation is itself highly socially desirable. The wealth would not be extinguished. It would instead accumulate to other households throughout society. An analogy is carbon taxes targeted at lowering greenhouse gas emissions. If a carbon tax were implemented and the revenue it raised steadily fell over time, this would be a sign of success, as the primary virtue of such a tax is not the long-run revenue it can raise but the behavioral changes it can spur, such as switching to less carbon-intensive forms of energy generation and use.

The benefits from wealth decumulation could be profound. For one, much of the rise in wealth in recent decades has been the result of a zero-sum transfer of income claims away from workers and toward capital owners (Greenwald, Lettau, and Ludvigson 2025). To the degree that higher wealth taxes make these zero-sum transfers less desirable for privileged economic actors, the imperative to keep wages suppressed and profits higher will be sapped, leading to a broader distribution of the gains of economic growth.

Further, highly concentrated wealth leads naturally to highly concentrated political power, eroding the ability of typical families to have their voices heard in important political debates (Page, Bartels, and Seawright 2013). Studies show that popular support for democratic forms of government is weaker in more unequal societies, demonstrating that a greater concentration of wealth can lead to the erosion of democracy (Rau and Stokes 2024).

Converting the estate tax to a progressive inheritance tax

The estate tax in the United States currently only applies to estates of more than $11.4 million. At the end of 2025 it would have reverted to pre-2017 levels of roughly $7 million, but the Republican budget reconciliation bill passed in 2025 will raise it to a level more than twice as high starting in 2026—at $15 million. The 40% estate tax rate applies on values above these thresholds.

The estate tax threshold has been increased significantly since 2000, with changes in 2001, 2012, 2017, and 2025 all providing large increases. In 2000 the threshold for exemption was under $1 million, and the rate was 55%. If the 2000 threshold were simply updated for inflation, it would have been $1.3 million today, instead of $11.4 million. At this $1.3 million threshold and with a 55% rate, the estate tax would raise roughly $75 billion more in revenue this year than it is currently projected to.9 In short, our commitment to taxing wealthy estates and their heirs has eroded substantially in recent decades.

Batchelder (2020) proposes a new tax on inheritances that would replace the estate tax. Batchelder’s inheritance tax would not fall on the total value of the estate, but simply the portion of it inherited by individual heirs. Her proposal is to tax inheritances of various thresholds as ordinary income. Because the tax would be triggered by the lifetime level of gifts and inheritances, it cannot be avoided just by using estate planning to time these bequests and gifts. For a threshold of $1 million, the tax would raise roughly 0.35% of gross domestic product annually, or roughly $1 trillion over the next decade.

An inheritance tax is naturally more progressive than an estate tax. To see why, imagine an estate of $5 million that faced 2000-era estate tax rules. An estate tax would lower the value of the inheritance to all heirs by an amount proportional to the tax. Conversely, under an inheritance tax, the effective rate of the tax felt by heirs would be significantly different if the estate was spread among 10 heirs (each receiving $500,000 and, hence, not even being subject to the Batchelder inheritance tax that starts at $1 million) versus being spread among two heirs (each receiving $2.5 million and paying an inheritance tax). Fewer heirs for a given estate value imply a larger inheritance and, hence, a higher inheritance tax (if the inheritance exceeds the tax’s threshold).

Imposing a high-income surtax on millionaires

Probably the most straightforward way to tightly target a tax on a small slice of the richest taxpayers is to impose a high-income surtax. A surtax is simply an across-the-board levy on all types of income (ordinary income, business income, dividends, and capital gains) above a certain threshold. As such, there is zero possibility that lower-income taxpayers could inadvertently face any additional tax obligation because of it.

A version of such a high-income surtax was actually a key proposed financing source for early legislative versions of the Affordable Care Act. The bill that passed the House of Representatives included such a surtax.10 This surtax was replaced with other revenue sources during the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions.

One proposal is to enact a 10% surtax on incomes over $1 million. This would affect well under 1% of households (closer to 0.5%). Using data from the Statistics of Income (SOI) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), we find that roughly $1.55 trillion in adjusted gross income sat over this $1 million threshold among U.S. households in 2019.11 A purely static estimate with no behavioral effects, hence, would argue that $155 billion annually (10% of this $1.55 trillion) could be raised from this surcharge. In tax scoring models (like that of the Tax Policy Center or the Joint Committee on Taxation), behavioral effects tend to reduce estimates roughly 25% below such static estimates. Applying such a discount would still suggest that the revenue potential of a high-income surtax with a $1 million threshold could be $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

Raising the top marginal income tax rate back to pre-TCJA levels

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income was increased to 39.6%. During the George W. Bush and the first Donald Trump administrations, it was reduced and currently sits at 37%. This lower marginal top rate would have expired at the end of 2025, but the Republican budget reconciliation bill, passed by Congress and signed by Trump in July 2025, ensured that it would stay at 37%.

In 2025 the bracket that this top tax rate applies to will begin at $626,350 for single filers and joint filers. This is well under 1% of taxpayers. If the bracket for top tax rates was dropped to $400,000 and the rate was raised to 39.6%, the Tax Policy Center has estimated that this could raise roughly $360 billion over the next decade. Earlier in 2025, there were reports that Republicans in Congress were thinking about letting the top tax rate revert to the level it was at before the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This was touted as members of Congress breaking with their party’s orthodoxy and actually taxing the rich. On the contrary, the new top marginal tax rate now applies to joint filers at an even lower level than pre-TCJA rates.

As can be seen in Table 1, pushing the top marginal rate on ordinary income to pre-TCJA levels is one of the weakest tools we have for raising revenue from the rich. The reason is simple. A large majority of the income of the rich is not ordinary income; it is income derived from capital and wealth, and, hence, only changing the tax rate on ordinary income leaves this dominant income form of the rich untouched.

Corporate tax rate increases

In 2017 the TCJA lowered the top rate in the corporate income tax from 35% to 21%, and the 2025 Republican budget reconciliation bill extended that lower 21% rate. The 35% statutory rate that existed pre-TCJA was far higher than the effective rate actually paid by corporations. Significant loopholes in the corporate tax code allowed even highly profitable companies to pay far less than the 35% statutory rate.

But at the same time the TCJA lowered the statutory rate, it did little to reduce loopholes—the gap between effective and statutory rates after the TCJA’s passage remains very large.12 Clausing and Sarin (2023) have estimated that each 1 percentage point increase in the top statutory tax rate faced by corporations raises over $15 billion in the first years of the 10-year budget window. Raising today’s 21% top rate back to the 35% rate that prevailed before the TCJA would, hence, raise roughly $2.6 trillion over the next decade.

The immediate legal incidence of corporate taxes falls on corporations, the legal entities responsible for paying the taxes. However, the economic incidence is subject to more debate. The current majority opinion of tax policy experts and official scorekeepers like the Joint Tax Committee (JTC) is that owners of corporations (who skew toward the very wealthy) bear most of the burden of corporate tax changes.13 But some small share of the corporate tax rate’s incidence is often assigned to workers’ wages, as there are some (speculative) reasons to think a higher corporate tax rate leads in the long run to lower wage income. The economic reasoning is that if the higher corporate tax rates lead to less economywide investment in tangible structures, equipment, and intellectual property, then this could slow economywide productivity growth. This slower productivity growth could, in turn, reduce wage growth for workers.

However, newer research highlights that there are good reasons to think that corporate tax rate increases have zero—or even positive—effects on private investment in structures, equipment, and intellectual property. Brun, Gonzalez, and Montecino (2025, forthcoming) argue that once one accounts for market power (either in product or labor markets) of corporations, corporate taxes fall, in part, on nonreproducible monopoly rents. To provide an example, a large share of Amazon’s profits is not just due to the size of the firm’s capital stock but its considerable monopoly power in many business segments. This market power allows them to charge higher prices than they could in competitive markets, and these excess prices represent a pure zero-sum transfer from consumers, not a normal return to investment.

Increasing taxes on these monopoly rents can reduce stock market valuations of firms and actually lower the hurdle rate for potential competitors assessing whether to make investments in productivity-enhancing capital. This can actually boost investment and productivity economywide, and if investment and productivity rise (or just do not fall) in response to corporate tax increases, this implies that none of the economic incidence of a corporate tax increase falls on anybody but the owners of corporations.

In short, despite some mild controversy, it seems very safe to assume that increases in the corporate income tax rate both are and would be perceived by the public as extremely progressive.

Closing tax loopholes that the ultrarich and corporations use

As noted above, it’s not just falling tax rates that have led to revenue stagnation in recent decades. There has also been an erosion of tax bases. Growing loopholes and increasingly aggressive tax evasion strategies have put more and more income out of the reach of revenue collectors. It goes almost without saying that the vast majority of revenue escaping through these loopholes and aggressive tax evasion strategies constitutes the income of the very rich and corporations.

These types of loopholes are unavailable to typical working families because their incomes are reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Typical working families rely on wage income, which is reported to the penny to the IRS, and families pay their legally obligated tax amount. Income forms earned by the ultrarich, however, often have very spotty IRS reporting requirements, and this aids in the evasion and reclassification of income flows to ensure the ultrarich are taxed at the lowest rates.14 Shoring up tax bases by closing loopholes and engaging in more robust enforcement are key priorities for ensuring the very rich pay a fair and substantial contribution to the nation’s revenue needs.

Closing loopholes that allow wealth gains and transfers between generations to escape taxation

The wealthy use a number of strategies to escape taxation of the income they generate and to allow assets to be transferred to their heirs. Below we discuss three such strategies and provide a score for a consolidated package of reforms aimed at stopping this class of tax strategies—$340 billion over the next decade.

Ending the step-up in basis upon death or transfer of assets

This is best explained with an example. Say that somebody bought shares of a corporation’s stock in the early 1980s for $1 per share. They held onto it for decades until it reached $501 per share. Since they never realized this capital gain by selling the stock, they were never taxed on their growing wealth. Now, say that they transferred these stock holdings to their children decades later. Because it is no longer the original buyer’s property, it would not be assessed as part of an estate subject to the estate tax. If their children subsequently sold the stock, current law would allow a step-up in basis, which means the capital gain they earned from selling the stock would only be taxed on the gain over and above the $501 per share price that prevailed when they received the stock, not the original $1 per share price.

So, if children sold their stock gift for $501 per share, they would owe zero tax. And for the family as a whole, the entire (enormous) capital gain that occurred when the share appreciated from $1 to $501 is never taxed. This allows huge amounts of wealth to be passed down through families without the dynasty’s ever paying appropriate taxes, either capital gains taxes or estate taxes.

An obvious solution to this problem is simply to not grant the step-up in basis when the asset is transferred. That is, when the children receive the stock in the example above, any subsequent sale should be taxed on any capital gain calculated from the $1 originally paid for the stock. In the case above, the children would have had to pay a capital gains tax on the full value between $1 and $501 if they had sold the stock for $501.

Besides raising money directly through larger capital gains values, ending the step-up in basis can also cut down on many tax engineering strategies that wealthy families undertake to avoid taxation. Estimates for the revenue that could be raised by enacting this change are quite varied, but they tend to sit between $15 billion and $60 billion in 2025.15 We estimate this would raise $190 billion over the next decade.

An alternative solution getting at the same problem would be to make the death of a wealth holder a realizable event. Essentially, for the purposes of taxation, it would be assumed that all assets were sold by a wealth holder upon their death, and the appropriate rate of capital gains taxation would then be collected.

Making borrowing a realizable event

A related reform would make the pledging of any asset as collateral against a loan a realizable event. In the example above, as the original holder of the stock held the shares and did not sell them over a long period of time, this raises an obvious question of how this family is financing their current consumption without liquidating any wealth. They could, of course, be earning labor income. But the very wealthy often finance current consumption by taking out loans and using the value of their wealth as collateral. So long as the interest rates on the loans are lower than the rate of return on the wealth being pledged as collateral, they can enjoy high and rising consumption and still see considerable wealth appreciation. This is a particularly useful strategy during periods of low interest rates (like most of the past 25 years) and for owners of newer corporations that are growing rapidly (think Jeff Bezos and Amazon during the 2000s). This use of debt as a strategy of avoiding capital gains realization has often been called the “Buy, Borrow, Die” strategy.

An obvious reform to stop this would be to force wealth holders to treat pledging an asset as collateral as a realization event for this asset. When the wealth holder goes to financiers to get loans and pledges their shares as collateral, the wealth holder would pay a capital gains tax on the difference in the value of the stock between when they originally bought it and the value the day it is pledged for collateral. The amount of revenue this would raise would be small in the grand scheme of the federal budget, roughly $60 billion over the next decade. But it would provide one more block to a common tax evasion strategy for the ultrarich, and this could show up in more revenue collected through other taxes.

Closing loopholes that erode estate or inheritance tax bases

Hemel and Lord (2021) identify estate planning mechanisms that reduce the base of the current estates taxes, including the abuse of grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) and excessively preferential tax treatment of transfers within family-controlled entities. Under current law, wealthy individuals establishing a trust for their descendants may calculate the taxable gift amount of the trust by subtracting the value of any qualified interest. This qualified interest includes any term annuity retained by the grantor of the trust. The annuity is based on market interest rates prevailing when the trust was established. When interest rates are low, this becomes an extremely valuable deduction.

Hemel and Lord (2021) give the example of a grantor establishing a $100 billion trust but retaining a two-year annuity payment of $50.9 million based on the 1.2% interest rate prevailing in 2021. This taxpayer would be able to subtract this annuity from their taxable gift calculation, effectively paying no gift tax. If the assets in the trust grew faster than 1.2%, then the trust would have assets left over after two years, and these could be passed to the beneficiaries free of any transfer tax (as these assets came from the trust, not the original grantor). If assets in the trust grew more slowly than this amount, then the trust would be unable to make its full final annuity payment and would be declared a failed trust and would trigger no estate or gift tax consequences. In this case, the original grantor could simply try again to construct a short-term irrevocable trust that would succeed in transferring income to heirs without triggering a gift tax.

Hemel and Lord (2021) recommend repealing the law that allows for this deduction of qualified interest from gift or transfer taxes applying to GRATs. They also argue for reducing the preferential treatment of transfers within family-controlled entities. The full package of reforms to estate planning that they recommend would raise $90 billion over the next decade.

Closing the loophole from ambiguity between self-employment and net investment income

As part of the Affordable Care Act, a 3.8% tax was assessed on income above $200,000 (for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers). If this income is earned as wages or self-employment income, this tax is paid through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) or the Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) taxes. If the income is received as a dividend or interest payment or royalty or other form of investment income, the tax is paid as a Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT). The clear intent is for income of all forms to be assessed this tax.

Somehow, however, some business owners (mostly those owning limited partnerships and S corporations—corporations with a limited number of shareholders who are required to pass through all profits immediately to owners) have managed to classify their income as not subject to FICA, SECA, or the NIIT.16 A number of policy options could close this unintended gap and raise nontrivial amounts of revenue—roughly $25 billion in 2025. Importantly, the revenue collected by this loophole closing would go directly to the Medicare trust fund.

International corporate tax reform

Before the TCJA, the biggest loophole by far in the corporate income tax code was U.S. corporations’ ability to defer taxes paid on profits earned outside the United States. In theory, once these profits were repatriated, taxes would be levied on them. However, financial engineering meant that there was little need to repatriate these profits for reasons of undertaking investment or stock buybacks or anything else corporations wanted to do.17 Further, corporations routinely lobbied for repatriation holidays, periods of time when they were allowed to repatriate profits at a reduced rate. One such holiday was passed by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush in 2004.

Between 2004 and 2017, pressure for another such holiday ramped up as more and more firms deferred corporate taxes by holding profits offshore. The TCJA not only provided such a holiday for past profits kept offshore, it also made profits booked overseas mostly exempt from U.S. corporate taxes going forward. In essence, the TCJA turned deferral into an exemption.

This TCJA exemption of foreign-booked profits was subject to small bits of tax base protection. But they have been largely ineffective. The 2025 budget reconciliation bill would further exacerbate these problems, reducing taxes on foreign income even more.

Clausing and Sarin (2023) recommend a suite of corporate reforms that aims to level the playing field between firms booking profits in the United States versus overseas. Key among them would be to reform the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax rate, a rate introduced in the TCJA, to ensure that financial engineering would not allow large amounts of corporate income earned by U.S.-based multinationals to appear as if they were earned in tax havens.18

The GILTI is essentially a global minimum tax rate for U.S. multinationals. But the rate (10.5% in 2024 and 12.6% in 2025) is far too low to effectively stop this kind of tax haven-shopping for corporations, much lower than the 15% minimum rate negotiated by the OECD and agreed to by the Biden administration in 2022.

In addition, multinationals are currently allowed to blend all their foreign tax obligations globally and take credits for foreign corporate income taxes paid. So, taxes paid on a company’s actual manufacturing plant in, say, Canada, can count toward the GILTI contribution of a multinational, even if they then used financial engineering to shift most of their paper profits to tax havens like the Cayman Islands.

Raising the GILTI rate and applying it on a country-by-country basis would go a long way to preserving the base of the U.S. corporate income tax in the face of tax havens. The Clausing and Sarin (2023) suite of reforms would raise $42 billion in 2025.

Building up IRS enforcement capabilities and mandates

In 2022, the IRS estimated that the tax gap (the dollar value of taxes legally owed but not paid in that year) exceeded $600 billion. The richest households account for the large majority of this gap. The IRS in recent decades has lacked both the resources and the political support to properly enforce the nation’s tax laws and collect the revenue the richest households owe the country.

Due to this lack of resources and mandates, the IRS instead often took the perverse approach of leveraging enforcement against easy cases—easy both in terms of not taking much capacity and of not generating intense congressional backlash.19 In practice, this meant intensively auditing recipients of refundable tax credits to look for improper payments. Tax credits are refundable when the amount of a credit (say, the Child Tax Credit) is larger than the taxpayer’s entire income tax liability. In this case, the credit does not just reduce income tax liability; it will also result in an outright payment (hence, refundable) to the taxpayer claiming it. Recipients of these refundable tax credits are, by definition, low-income taxpayers—those with low income tax liability. Besides making the lives of these low-income households more anxious, these audits also just failed to generate much revenue—again, because the group being audited was generally low income and didn’t owe significant taxes in the first place.

The Biden administration included significant new money to boost IRS enforcement capacity as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This extra enforcement capacity was paired with new mandates to reduce the tax gap by increasing enforcement efforts on rich taxpayers.

However, the IRA additions to IRS resources were already being chiseled away before the 2024 presidential election. The Trump administration clearly has no interest in whether or not the IRS consistently enforces revenue collection from the rich. The budget reconciliation bill that Republicans passed through Congress in July rolled back the expanded funding for IRS enforcement. Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget for IRS funding would chip away at that even further. 

The IRS has also not been immune to the Trump administration’s attempt to make life miserable for federal employees. The agency has lost a quarter of its workforce since 2025 to layoffs, the deferred resignation offer pushed by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, early retirements, and other separations (TIGTA 2025).

The sharp turn away from the Biden administration’s support of the IRS represents a missed opportunity. While it would be near impossible to fully close the tax gap, Sarin and Summers (2019) estimate that some modest and doable steps could reliably collect significantly over $100 billion per year over the next decade from increased enforcement efforts.

How much could a campaign of confidence-building measures to tax the ultrarich raise?

These measures to enact a series of tax reforms laser-targeted at only the rich could raise significant revenue. One obvious benchmark suggests itself: the current fiscal gap. The fiscal gap is how much (as a share of GDP) taxes would need to be raised or spending would need to be cut to stabilize the ratio of public debt to GDP. Today this gap stands at roughly 2.2%.

Table 1 gives a rough score for each of the provisions mentioned above. It then conservatively estimates the combined revenue-raising potential of this package. It assumes that the whole policy package is equal to 70% of the sum of its parts. This would help account for some fiscal “externalities” (i.e., taxing wealth means wealth grows more slowly over time and, hence, reduces tax collections on income earned from wealth going forward). It also would help account for some potentially duplicative effects that could reduce some revenue collected by the combination of these reforms. For example, if the step-up in basis were eliminated, the incentive for rich households to finance consumption with loans would be reduced, so the revenue generated by treating the pledging of collateral as a realizable event would likely be reduced.

Table 1

This combination of confidence-building measures to tax the rich would unambiguously be able to close the nation’s current fiscal gap. The sum of the parts of this agenda would raise roughly 4% of GDP over the long run, and even if the sharp 30% discount on the sum of these parts was applied, it is still just under 3% of GDP. Telling the American public that this package of tax increases on the ultrarich had put the nation on a fully sustainable long-run trajectory while still leaving enough money to fund something as large as universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds or a radical increase in more generous coverage in the nation’s unemployment insurance system could be seismic for changing the tax debate in the United States.

For those like us who advocate for even larger expansions of the U.S. system of income support, social insurance, and public investment, the future political debate over how to finance them would be on much more favorable ground with the public’s support. The conditions of the debate would change if the public could shake the (too often true) impression that the U.S. government is failing to ask the ultrarich and corporations to do their part to contribute to the nation’s fiscal needs.

Conclusion

Obviously, this program of laser-targeting tax increases on the ultrarich is not the policy of the current Trump administration or the Republican majority in Congress. They have already spent the first half of 2025 forcing through a monster of a reconciliation bill, which extended the expiring provisions of the TCJA, provisions that provide disproportionate benefits to the very rich. The reconciliation bill represents a shocking upward redistribution of income from the very poor to the very rich, paying for trillions of dollars in tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy by stripping health care and food assistance from millions of Americans. 

But as damaging as extending these expiring provisions will be to tax fairness and economic outcomes, they might be even more damaging to the public’s confidence that tax policy can ever be reoriented to ensure that the ultrarich and corporations pay their fair share. Instead, the debate over the expiring provisions will draw attention to two facts. First, the large majority of U.S. households will see a tax cut (relative to current law), but these cuts will be much larger for the rich. For example, the bottom 60% of households will see a tax cut of just over $1 per day, while the top 1% will see a cut of $165 per day, and the top 0.1% will see a whopping $860 per day. Second, these regressive tax cuts are bundled with spending cuts that will sharply reduce incomes for the people in the bottom half of the income distribution, leaving them net losers overall.

This combination of facts will continue to feed perceptions that the only way typical households can get something—anything—out of tax policy debates is if they settle for crumbs from the feast enjoyed by the richest. And even these crumbs will be taken back in the form of cuts elsewhere.

It’s time to reverse these perceptions. If policymakers engage in a confidence-building set of measures to raise significant revenue only from the ultrarich, the public’s stance toward tax policy can be changed from being anti-tax to being willing to have debates about the pros and cons of public sector expansions, content in the knowledge that the very rich will neither escape their obligations nor claim the lion’s share of benefits yet again.

Notes

1. Obviously not all of this downward ratchet is bad. The steep decline in tax rates for the poorest families, driven by expanding Earned Income and Child Tax credits, has been a very welcome policy development in recent decades.

2. The strong relationship between the level of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and the share of the public sector in a nation’s economy is recognized enough to have been named: Wagner’s Law.

3. On the relative smallness of the U.S. fiscal state (both spending and taxation as shares of GDP), see EPI 2025.

4. Bivens and Mishel 2021 note the number of intentional policy changes outside the sphere of taxation that have driven much of the growth in pre-tax inequality.

5. For example, both the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) paid for the additional spending on public investments and income support programs they called for with new taxes. That said, because Republican-driven tax cuts were passed in the interim, the upshot has been mostly larger budget deficits over time.

6. See Kogan and Vela 2024 for an explanation and estimation of the U.S. fiscal gap in 2024.

7. The rate of return assumption matters a lot for how durable revenue increases from a wealth tax will be over time. A rate of 8.5% is on the high end of many projections for rates of return to wealth in coming decades.

8. Specifically, they note about wealth taxes: “Set the rates medium (2%–3%) and you get revenue for a long time and deconcentration eventually” (Saez and Zucman 2019b). When they estimate the potential revenue of Elizabeth Warren’s 2% wealth tax on estates over $50 million (with an additional tax of 1% on wealth over a billion), they find it raises roughly 1% of GDP per year (Saez and Zucman 2019a).

9. This estimate comes from the Penn Wharton Budget Model 2022.

10. For a description of that surtax and the competing revenue options debated at the time, see Bivens and Gould 2009.

11. This number has been inflated to 2024 dollars.

12. See Gardner et al. 2024 on the effective corporate income tax rate before and after the TCJA.

13. For example, the Distributional Financial Accounts of the Federal Reserve Board (2025) estimate that the wealthiest 1% of households own over 30% of corporate equities, while the wealthiest 10% own just under 90%.

14. See Sarin and Summers 2019 for how much of the tax gap is driven by poor reporting requirements on income flows disproportionately earned by the rich—mostly various forms of noncorporate business income.

15. This range of estimates comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 2023, and Lautz and Hernandez 2024. Part of this variation is about how much extra revenue is allocated to the strict step-up in basis termination versus the extra revenue that is collected through the normal capital gains tax as a result of closing this loophole.

16. The details of this gap can be found in Office of Tax Analysis 2016. The upshot is that some business owners have managed to deny being active managers of their firms and have, hence, avoided being taxed on labor earnings, but they have somehow also managed to deny being passive owners of their firms, hence avoiding the NIIT as well. It is bizarre that this not-active but not-passive category of owner has been allowed to be given legal status, but that does seem to be the state of the law currently, until Congress acts.

17. See Bivens 2016 on how profits held abroad by deferring taxation were not a constraint on any meaningful economic activity.

18. I say “appear” because the ability and even the specific strategies corporations have to make profits clearly earned by sales in the United States appear on paper to have been earned in tax havens are all extremely well documented by now, including in Zucman 2015.

19. See Elzayn et al. 2023 for evidence that the audit patterns of the IRS in the mid-2010s were driven by these considerations.

References

Batchelder, Lily. 2020. Leveling the Playing Field Between Inherited Income and Income from Work Through an Inheritance Tax. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, January 28, 2020.

Bivens, Josh. 2016. “Freeing Corporate Profits from Their Fair Share of Taxes Is Not the Deal America Needs.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 27, 2016.

Bivens, Josh, and Elise Gould. 2009. House Health Care Bill Is Right on the Money: Taxing High Incomes Is Better Than Taxing High Premiums. Economic Policy Institute, December 2009.

Bivens, Josh, and Lawrence Mishel. 2021. Identifying the Policy Levers Generating Wage Suppression and Wage Inequality. Economic Policy Institute, May 2021.

Brun, Lidía, Ignacio González, and Juan Antonio Montecino. 2025. “Corporate Taxation and Market Power Wealth.” Working Paper, Institute for Macroeconomic Policy Analysis (IMPA), February 12, 2025.

Clausing, Kimberly A., and Natasha Sarin. 2023. The Coming Fiscal Cliff: A Blueprint for Tax Reform in 2025. The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, September 2023.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025. U.S. Tax and Spending Explorer.

Elazyn, Hadi, Evelyn Smith, Thomas Hertz, Arun Ramesh, Robin Fisher, Daniel E. Ho, and Jacob Goldin. 2023. “Measuring and Mitigating Racial Disparities in Tax Audits.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Working Paper, January 2023.

Federal Reserve Board. 2025. Distributional Financial Accounts of the United States. Accessed April 2025.

Gardner, Matthew, Michael Ettlinger, Steve Wamhoff, and Spandan Marasini. 2024. Corporate Taxes Before and After the Trump Tax Law. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), May 2, 2024.

Greenwald, Daniel L., Martin Lettau, and Sydney C. Ludvigson. 2025. “How the Wealth Was Won: Factor Shares as Market Fundamentals.” Journal of Political Economy 133, no. 4 (April): 1083–1132.

Hemel, Daniel, and Robert Lord. 2021. “Closing Gaps in the Estate and Gift Tax Base.” Working Paper, Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics. University of Chicago Law School, August 13, 2021.

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). 2023. Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2023–2027. JCX-59-23, December 7, 2023.

Kogan, Bobby, and Jessica Vela. 2024. What Would It Take to Stabilize the Debt-to-GDP Ratio? Center for American Progress, June 5, 2024.

Lautz, Andrew, and Fredrick Hernandez. 2024. Paying the 2025 Tax Bill: Step Up in Basis and Securities-Backed Lines of Credit. Bipartisan Policy Center, December 12, 2024.

Office of Tax Analysis. 2016. Gaps Between the Net Investment Income Tax Base and the Employment Tax Base, April 14, 2016.

Page, Benjamin I., Larry M. Bartels, and Jason Seawright. 2013. “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans.” Perspectives on Politics 11, no. 1 (March): 51–73.

Penn Wharton Budget Model. 2022. Decomposing the Decline in Estate Tax Liability Since 2000, University of Pennsylvania, July 28, 2022.

Rau, Eli G., and Susan Stokes. 2024. “Income Inequality and the Erosion of Democracy in the Twenty-First Century.” PNAS 122, no. 1, December 30, 2024.

Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman. 2019a. “Policy Memo on Wealth Taxes,” September 22, 2019.

Saez, Emmanuel, and Gabriel Zucman. 2019b. Progressive Wealth Taxation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2019.

Sarin, Natasha, and Lawrence H. Summers. 2019. “Shrinking the Tax Gap: Approaches and Revenue Potential.” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper no. 26475, November 2019.

Tax Policy Center (TPC). 2025. Revenue Estimate of Wealth Tax Proposal from Why Not Initiative.

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). 2025. Snapshot Report: IRS Workforce Reductions as of May 2025. Report Number 2025-IE-R027. July 18, 2025.

Williamson, Vanessa S. 2017. Read My Lips: Why Americans Are Proud to Pay Taxes. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, March 2017.

Zucman, Gabriel. 2015. The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens. Translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan. Foreword by Thomas Piketty. Univ. of Chicago Press.

A major focus of the hearing was Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) Faster Labor Contracts Act—bipartisan legislation to improve the process for reaching initial collective bargaining agreements when workers first organize a union. Currently, it is a common tactic for employers to slow-walk the bargaining process because there are no penalties for doing so, and delay frustrates workers and undermines their union. Research shows that only 36% of newly organized bargaining units achieve an initial collective bargaining agreement within a year, and a third of newly organized bargaining units still do not have a first contract after three years.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act would require parties to begin bargaining promptly after a union is certified, and if bargaining fails to produce an agreement within 90 days (or longer if the parties agree), the parties would be required to engage in mediation. If mediation was not successful, an arbitration panel would be convened to hear from both parties and render a final and binding decision on the terms of an initial collective bargaining agreement. Through this process, workers would be assured of reaching an initial collective bargaining agreement—the reason they sought to organize a union—within a reasonable period of time.

Addressing the first contract problem is a vitally important part of the labor law reform discussion, but it is only one piece of the puzzle—it will not fix our outdated, failed labor law and provide a real opportunity to unionize for the millions of non-union workers who want a union. Senator Hawley’s Faster Labor Contracts Act is pulled directly from the more comprehensive Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. The PRO Act would not only provide first contract mediation and arbitration but also rein in employer interference in the election process, establish monetary penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and override state “right-to-work” laws, among other reforms.

Curiously, there was no mention in the HELP Committee hearing of how the Trump administration is already undermining what the Faster Labor Contracts Act aims to do. The legislation relies on the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to provide the mediation and arbitration services that are at the heart of the legislation. But President Trump has tried to shutter the agency and the agency has only survived because of two lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the agency’s closure. Scores of experienced mediators have left the agency, and FMCS has eliminated many of its services and limited the number and type of mediations it will do in its diminished state. President Trump’s budget again proposes to shutter FMCS—he has proposed only enough money to close the agency down permanently in his FY 2026 budget.

Without a robust, government-supported mediation and arbitration system, the Faster Labor Contracts Act would not be able to live up to its promise. It is no answer to say that employers and unions can hire mediators and arbitrators in the private market. While there are many excellent mediators and arbitrators in the private market, the cost can often be prohibitive, with fees that often run into thousands of dollars per day of services. 

Nor should the parties have to foot the bill on their own. Since 1935, our federal policy has been explicitly to “encourage[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.” Congress established the FMCS in 1947 to assist employers, workers, and unions in the collective bargaining process in furtherance of this policy and to promote industrial peace. Over the years, FMCS has provided important services at no cost to the parties, including early intervention in new collective bargaining relationships and training on the collective bargaining process along with mediation and dispute resolution services. Before the Trump administration essentially shut them down, FMCS helped reach first collective bargaining agreements at the first unionized Apple Store and at the National Institutes of Health, among others. All of these services are vital to supporting the collective bargaining process and furthering our national policy in support of collective bargaining.

Of course, FMCS’s operations could be improved—that’s the case with every agency, business, and organization. And the agency has suffered from the lack of a Senate-confirmed director for years. But the bottom line remains that if we are to offer a genuine solution to the first contract problem, an independent agency to assist the parties in the collective bargaining process must be restored.

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.

The labor market mostly held strong in 2024 

Between 2021 and 2023, the labor market rebounded dramatically from the pandemic recession as large-scale policy interventions—like expanded unemployment insurance—helped families stay afloat and drove a recovery several times faster than the Great Recession. In 2024, the labor market remained relatively strong, growing by 2 million jobs over the year. The unemployment rate rose slightly but maintained a 4.0% average over the year. 

The prime-age employment-to-population ratio—the share of workers between the ages of 25 and 54 with a job—held steady at a high level of 80.7% in 2024. Prime-age Hispanic workers saw their employment rise, as prime-age Hispanic men increased their employment rates by 0.7 percentage points. Employment also rose slightly for prime-age Black and white women by 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points, respectively. At the same time, Black and white men experienced mild declines in their employment rates. 

Real (inflation-adjusted) wages continued to increase in 2024. Figure A shows that inflation fell sharply from 3.9% to 2.6% over the course of the year. At the same time, the strong labor market allowed workers to maintain a solid pace of nominal wage growth: nominal hourly wages and weekly earnings growth decelerated by much smaller amounts than price growth for goods and services. This combination of inflation falling faster than nominal wage growth is exactly the macroeconomic “soft landing” from the COVID-19 inflation shock that so many thought would be impossible to achieve. Together, this translated into a 1.4% increase in average real hourly wages over the year. Average real weekly earnings—perhaps a better signal for the annual income data out next week—rose by 0.9%. 

While these are meaningful averages, we also know that real wage growth was particularly strong for lower–wage workers and workers with lower levels of educational attainment. Along with steady employment, these advances bode well for improvements to income and poverty rates in next week’s report.

Figure A

Persistent economic disparities leave families of color disproportionately vulnerable

The upcoming Census release will continue to show persistent racial inequities that can only be corrected through years of sustained progress. In 2023, typical Black and Hispanic households were paid just 63 cents and 74 cents, respectively, for every dollar paid to the median non-Hispanic white household. These disparities are especially harmful to low-income families of color who live in a constant state of economic insecurity. In a new report, we find that Black and Hispanic families with children make up more than half (61.1%) of economically vulnerable families, defined as those with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line. Even within the group of economically vulnerable families, Black and Hispanic workers are also more likely to have incomes below the poverty line (see Figure B below). Narrowing these racial disparities will demand stronger and more persistent income gains for these families in the years to come.  

Figure B

Policy changes are weakening the economy in 2025

There are several reasons to suspect that 2025 will be a worse year for incomes and poverty. For one, labor market indicators have weakened: unemployment inched up to 4.2% by July 2025, and job growth slowed to 85,000 per month compared with 168,000 in 2024. The last three months saw average job growth of just 35,000 per month. While layoffs have not yet surged, both employers and workers appear to be sitting tight in anticipation of a weaker economy going forward. Federal employment has fallen by 84,000 since January, which doesn’t include the many workers who will leave federal payrolls on September 30 at the end of the fiscal year. According to Trump official Scott Kupor, 2025 will end with 300,000 fewer federal workers.

The Trump administration’s damaging and chaotic tariff policy also threatens economic security, with nearly universal tariffs set at the highest level in a century or more. This is causing severe business uncertainty and already leading to higher prices for households because tariffs are taxes on both imported and domestically produced goods. Since lower-income families spend a higher share of their income on goods consumption, these tariffs will disproportionately harm their real incomes.

In addition, the administration’s mass deportation agenda will substantially harm the labor market. The damage will not just be felt by immigrant workers and their families—they will spill over and hurt U.S.-born workers as well. If the Trump administration successfully follows through on its goals of deporting 1 million people each year during their term, there will be 3.3 million fewer employed immigrants and 2.6 million fewer employed U.S.-born workers by 2029.

Health insurance coverage and access to food assistance will fall over the next several years

Health insurance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) coverage, and Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) rates in 2024 will likely represent high-water marks over the next few years. That’s because the Republican spending bill passed in July cuts Medicaid spending by $793 billion and SNAP benefits by $186 billion over the next decade—all to pay for tax cuts for the richest Americans.

The share of the population without health insurance was 8.0% in 2023, or about 26.5 million people. This ranked near historic lows in the United States—driven by a strong labor market, enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, and pandemic-era coverage protections (particularly in Medicaid). 2024 saw a slight rollback in some of the pandemic-era coverage protections, but the strong labor market and ACA subsidies likely kept uninsurance rates relatively low. However, we can expect uninsurance rates to climb in 2025 and beyond because the Republican spending bill both cut Medicaid and allowed the enhanced ACA subsides to lapse. This will lead to more than 14 million people losing health insurance coverage by 2035, increasing the number of uninsured people by more than 40%.1

The Republican budget will also lower incomes and increase food insecurity by cutting SNAP. Benefit reductions and more stringent eligibility requirements will reduce SNAP participation by an average of 2.4 million in the next decade. A weakening labor market will exacerbate this problem by making it more difficult to satisfy new SNAP work requirements as people work fewer hours due to shrinking job opportunities.

Black and Hispanic households will likely represent a disproportionate share of those losing health insurance coverage and access to SNAP benefits. Figure C below shows that people of color are more likely to rely on Medicaid and SNAP benefits. In 2023, SNAP lifted more than 3 million people out of poverty—over half of those were Black or Hispanic, and nearly 40% were children. Cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other government support programs mean that the 2024 rate of poverty as measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure will also likely be the lowest for many years to come.

Figure C

Timely and accurate data are essential but under threat

Next week’s release will also mark the last year in which data from federal statistical agencies could be reliably assumed to be completely free of politicization or manipulation. Staffing cuts and politically motivated firings at government agencies threaten the credibility of future data releases. On August 1,^, Trump fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner because he did not like the jobs numbers they released. High-quality public data inform how well the economy is delivering for the majority of working people—whether job opportunities exist, how families make ends meet, and whether families have access to vital services such as nutrition and health care. There is simply no substitute for the government data infrastructure, and pressure from the executive branch to alter data to fit political aims will damage a valuable public good that is critical for business decisions, policymaking, and planning by all stakeholders in the economy.

It is possible that the extreme competence and professionalism of federal workers who staff the statistical agencies will shield most of the data they release from manipulation or quality-erosion. But this will take near-heroic measures and is too much to ask of our civil service—they work hard enough collecting and analyzing this data in professional and non-politicized ways, they should not also have to be activists safeguarding its integrity.

Note

1. CBO projected that 32.4 out of 363.3 million people would be uninsured in 2034. Adding 10 million uninsured due to Medicaid cuts brings the uninsurance rate to 11.7%, compared with the actual 2023 uninsurance rate of 8.0%.

The bill is designed to cause a shocking upward redistribution of income. It includes draconian spending cuts—mostly to health care and food assistance for children and families—in order to give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest households. Because these cuts to health care and food assistance are so broad and deep, and because the tax cuts for anybody who is not already rich are so paltry, the bill will cause the bottom 40% of households to actually lose income on average. This group includes roughly 125 million people, and for a family of three it will include households with incomes up to $85,000. Meanwhile, households in the top 0.1% (those making over $3.3 million per year) will gain over $100,000 annually under this bill.

The spending cuts will also help finance the administration’s dream of an authoritarian-style immigration enforcement regime, providing funding at staggering levels to expand internment camps and surveillance across the country. This enforcement, of course, won’t help workers or create more jobs—on the contrary, it will cause massive job losses for both immigrants and U.S.-born workers.

Because the bill structures its painful cuts on cynical political timelines in an effort to avoid accountability, the suffering will unfold steadily over the next decade. But just because the pain will be strategically doled out over a longer timeline does not make it any less real or urgent. People will die. Children will lose access to food, and families will lose access to health care. Hospitals will be forced to downsize and close, particularly in rural areas. This will cause huge disruptions to local economies as the spillover effects from the loss of health care jobs will trigger significant job losses outside of health care.

The bill’s Medicaid cuts will hit the hardest in precisely those areas that can weather it the least, given that the counties with the highest share of people on Medicaid are also the counties with the highest unemployment rates. But the GOP has decided that it doesn’t matter if kids go hungry, parents can’t afford the medicine they need, towns can’t properly fund public schools, or jobs are wiped out in struggling rural counties—as long as the wealthiest Americans get a big, beautiful tax break.

And, those tax breaks are such massive giveaways to the rich that they will increase the deficit by close to $4 trillion, even with the draconian cuts for the most vulnerable. It’s worth noting that the GOP is desperately trying to hide that fact. They have taken the extraordinary step of coming up with a new and utterly bogus baseline against which to measure the cost of the bill. Their gimmicky methodology “finds” that the bill will reduce deficits by about $500 billion. Through this sleight of hand, Republicans are shamelessly lying to the public about the cost of the bill in order to make it sound less grotesque and damaging than it actually is.

If this bill becomes law, there will be a protracted period of economic pain that takes years to play out. By sharply raising deficits at a time when inflation and interest rates are already too high, the bill will gradually suppress productivity-boosting private investment—including in clean energy and much-needed housing. This crowding out of investment will be on top of the expanded scope of deportations made possible in this bill, which will shrink the nation’s labor supply. It’s further compounded by the Trump administration’s historically broad and steep tariffs that will raise prices and disrupt supply chains, along with deep cuts to crucial federal workforces that are key complements to private-sector growth.

In short, this bill will be another key contributor to weaker economic growth over the next decade, making us and our children reliably poorer for no reason other than to write larger tax cut checks to the richest people in the country. This bill is one of the most destructive economic proposals we’ve seen in the U.S. in generations.