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.

Access to paid sick leave is increasing in some areas

On a national level, we’ve seen positive trends in access to paid sick days from 63% of private-sector workers in 2012 to a record high of 80% in 2025, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These advances are driven by the fact that state and local governments enacted laws to enable workers to earn paid sick leave. In 2024, ballot measures were passed in Alaska and Nebraska. Alaska’s leave policy took effect on July 1, while Nebraska’s took effect just last week (albeit weaker than originally passed). Unfortunately, a paid sick leave measure that Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved by ballot was rolled back by the legislature and is no longer in effect.

Currently 18 states (including Washington, D.C.), 17 cities, and 4 counties have some form of paid sick leave requirements. Given that the existence of state laws varies, it’s no surprise that there are significant differences in access to paid sick time across the country, as shown in Figure A. The share of workers with access to paid sick days ranges from only 63% in the East South Central states (Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee) and 71% in the West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) up to 98% in the Pacific states (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska). The fact that the nearly 30 million workers in the Pacific states have essentially universal access to at least some form of paid sick days highlights that this key labor standard is purely a policy choice—and one that state and local governments can enforce on their own.

Figure A

Notably, many state governments in the East South Central and West South Central Census divisions have passed preemption laws prohibiting local municipalities from passing paid sick leave policies. So not only have legislative majorities failed to enact paid sick leave at the state level, but these states have also blocked cities and counties from passing legislation to provide paid sick leave for their workers.

Access to paid sick leave is greatest for the most highly paid workers

As with geographic variation, access to paid sick leave remains vastly unequal by wage level. As shown in Figure B, the higher the wage, the greater the access to paid sick leave. Among the 10% of private-sector workers with the highest wages, 96% have access to paid sick days. By contrast, among the 10% of workers with the lowest wages, only 41% have access to paid sick days.

Figure B

The unequal access to paid sick days is particularly troubling since low-wage workers are least able to absorb lost wages when they or their family members are sick. Workers may have trouble paying for housing, food, health care, and other necessities (see Table 1 of this report). This unequal access is why state laws are so important: Most of the gains from state and local paid sick provision benefited the lowest-wage workers. Access for the bottom 10% of wage earners increased from 19% in 2012 to 41% in 2025.

There is also huge variation in access to paid sick days within the private sector for workers by work hours and union status. Full-time workers are much more likely to have paid sick days than part-time workers (88% versus 56%). Unionized workers have greater access to paid sick days than nonunion workers (86% versus 80%).

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple way to address some of these inequities: The federal government can pass legislation to mandate paid sick leave for all workers. In the absence of federal action, state governments can move on their own and mandate that employers provide this key labor standard. Paid sick leave not only helps reduce the transmission of disease, it also provides economic security for workers who might otherwise lose income if they have to take time off from work. 

Established in the wake of the Great Depression through the Social Security Act of 1935, unemployment insurance (UI) is a critical safety net program that provides a partial replacement of wages to workers who have separated from employment. UI helps workers and their families afford their basic needs during spells of unemployment. It also helps stabilize the macroeconomy by keeping dollars flowing to local economies where layoffs and job losses could otherwise result in harmful drops in aggregate demand. UI is a forward-funded reserve, accumulating tax dollars during periods of economic stability to support workers during economic downturns.

Federal law establishes UI as federal-state partnership. Under the existing framework, the federal government sets baseline program parameters and raises revenue through Federal Unemployment Tax Act taxes to cover state administrative costs (e.g., processing claims or maintaining state unemployment trust funds), provide technical assistance, and conduct performance monitoring. States are responsible for paying worker benefits, although the federal government typically covers at least half of the cost of “extended benefits” during recessions. States have significant discretion to determine key features of their UI programs, such as eligibility criteria, benefit amounts and durations, and financing mechanisms.

What are the threats to state UI programs?

Unemployment insurance programs face mounting threats—some that are new, some from long-standing structural weaknesses that have left many state UI programs chronically underfunded and ill-prepared for economic downturns. In particular:

1. The Trump administration aims to weaponize UI systems to advance its mass deportation agenda: All workers in the U.S. with legal status (regardless of citizenship or nationality) are eligible for UI benefits, though immigrants who lack work authorization are not. Despite this distinction, in April 2025, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer issued letters warning state governors against granting UI benefits to noncitizen workers, including those legally authorized to work. The letters threatened to withhold federal funds and directed states to verify the immigration status of UI applicants. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor recently proposed a rule change around UI data collection that poses risks to applicant privacy and could expand the risk of UI data being used for immigration enforcement.
2. The Trump administration’s rollback of merit staffing opens the door to UI privatization: Project 2025 calls for states to “innovate” with their UI programs by approving “non-public” organizations to administer benefits. This would dismantle long-standing merit staffing guidelines that require benefits to be administered by impartial career civil servants. Weakening merit staffing risks putting UI administration in the hands of actors who may not be impartial or accountable to the public. Although privatization of UI is explicitly prohibited by the Social Security Act, this backdoor approach erodes the public nature of UI administration. Research shows that introducing a profit motive for vital public services often results in reduced service quality, little cost savings, and less transparency, oversight, and accountability.
3. UI programs suffer from long-standing weaknesses that undermine their effectiveness as a safety net and economic stabilizer: Although unemployment insurance is a critical lifeline for unemployed workers, benefit levels replace less than 40% of wages on average, leaving many workers unable to meet their basic needs and disproportionately discouraging UI take-up among women and workers of color in low-wage jobs. Many states have also shortened benefit durations below the historical standard of 26 weeks, despite research showing such cuts reduce recipiency without improving employment rates or program solvency. At the same time, taxable wage bases and employer tax rates have eroded, starving trust funds. Most states now fail to meet federal solvency standards. Many states also rely on outmoded technology and understaffed state agencies to administer UI benefits and federal funding to modernize state UI systems was recently rescinded by the Trump administration. Finally, restrictive eligibility rules exclude large swaths of the workforce, including part-time and low-wage workers, women, Black and brown workers, misclassified workers, independent contractors, undocumented workers, and the self-employed. These weaknesses leave UI programs chronically underfunded, inaccessible to millions, and ill-equipped to protect workers or stabilize the economy during downturns.
4. Project 2025 seeks to weaken UI eligibility criteria by circumventing suitable work standards: Under federal law, workers can remain eligible for UI if they decline job offers that don’t meet a reasonable standard of suitability. Suitability definitions can vary by state but often consider factors such as health and safety conditions, wages, skills match, commuting distance, or other job characteristics when determining suitability. Some states’ suitable work requirements weaken the longer a worker is unemployed. Despite evidence that continued UI eligibility leads to better job matches and job quality, Project 2025 proposes providing states with waivers to suitable work requirements. Should waivers to this critical UI standard be adopted, workers could be disqualified from UI for turning down any job offer, no matter how unsafe, low-paid, or ill-suited to their experience. This would fundamentally weaken UI’s ability to facilitate good job matching, while putting workers in a precarious financial position following a job separation.

State lawmakers must act now to strengthen UI programs ahead of the next crisis

States lawmakers have broad authority over UI benefits, eligibility, and the financing of their states’ unemployment insurance trust fund, meaning they wield substantial power to ensure programs’ solvency and effectiveness when an economic crisis materializes. In light of the Trump administration’s anti-growth, inflationary economic policy and a softening labor market, policymakers must act with urgency to fortify UI programs.

Step I: Update state funding mechanisms to solidify trust funds and set basic minimum benefit standards

In recent decades, lawmakers in many states have sought to replenish unemployment trust funds by paring back benefits and restricting eligibility criteria. These efforts have largely failed to restore fund solvency or improve employment rates and have instead caused considerable harm to workers. State policymakers have the authority and tools to modernize their programs in ways that protect solvency without undercutting protections for workers. Policymakers should:

• Raise and index the taxable wage base to reflect the typical worker’s income: States have broad discretion in setting their taxable wage base (TWB), provided it meets or exceeds the exceptionally low federal minimum of $7,000. (As of 2025, the median state TWB is only $14,000.) States should link or index their TWBs to typical wages in their state. Currently, 18 states index their TWBs to the state’s average weekly wage, including Oregon (TWB of $54,300), Hawaii ($62,000), and Washington ($72,800). This ensures UI revenues keep pace with growth in the state economy, while creating a more equitable tax base and strengthening trust fund solvency. Adjusting taxable wage bases also allows states to generate more revenue at lower State Unemployment Tax Act (SUTA) rates. For instance, applying a 5.7% rate to a $7,000 tax base generates $400 in revenue per worker, while a much lower rate of 3.8% applied to a $21,000 tax base generates $800—twice the revenue. 
• Guarantee a minimum of 26 weeks of potential benefit duration: An extensive body of research finds that longer UI benefits do not meaningfully discourage work and any resulting increase in unemployment duration is offset by improved job matching, as workers find jobs with higher pay or that better match their skills. Prior to the Great Recession, all states offered at least 26 weeks of potential benefit duration (PBD) to eligible workers. Policymakers should ensure UI programs guarantee a minimum of 26 weeks of PBD.
• Raise benefit levels to afford workers a minimum standard of living: Low benefit levels mean low-wage workers—should they even qualify for benefits—often receive benefits that are unlivable. As a stepping stone to more ambitious and meaningful benefit level increases, lawmakers should set minimum benefit levels that working families can survive on: a benefit amount of at least 30% of the state’s average weekly wage or $300 per week (indexed to median wage growth), whichever is greater.

Step II: Improve program access and benefits to levels that make UI fulfill its core objectives

Unemployment insurance is one of the most important tools for reducing the harmful, reverberating effects of unemployment and one of the most effective programs for combatting recessions. Providing adequate benefits to unemployed workers leads to better reemployment outcomes, keeps dollars flowing in local economies, and ultimately lends itself to a more productive and dynamic economy. To this end, state policymakers should:

• Strengthen program administration and remove barriers to UI access: Applying for UI benefits is often a complex process and serves as a barrier to entry to workers who are navigating job loss. Underfunding and inadequate staffing of state and local UI administrative offices can compound these problems. Lawmakers should ensure that state agencies and UI offices have adequate resources to help applicants navigate the process and quickly process claims. In addition, the Century Foundation and Philadelphia Legal Assistance provide a comprehensive set of recommendations for state policymakers and agencies seeking to modernize UI systems and reduce barriers to access.
• Automatically extend UI benefits in difficult economic conditions to strengthen the program’s role as a macroeconomic stabilizer: When UI programs do not scale with market conditions, this deepens the damage caused by recessions. To better leverage UI’s stabilizing potential, states should utilize the optional Total Unemployment Rate (TUR)-based extended benefit program to guarantee workers can receive up to 20 weeks of extended benefits during severe economic crises. As of 2023, only 27 states and territories utilize the optional TUR-based trigger. Although optional state extended benefit programs carry some budgetary costs, they can help mitigate the long-lasting scarring effects of an economic contraction. 
• Set benefit levels that offer real protection for workers: State laws governing wage replacement and benefit maximums vary widely, but some states have adopted benefit formulas that provide much stronger protection. For instance, in 2024, Hawaii’s program provided an average weekly benefit of $653 (57% of worker wages), Washington’s average weekly benefit was $722 (51% of wages), and Massachusetts’s was $704 (48% of wages.) The National Employment Law Project’s policy brief describes optimal formulas for computing benefits.
• Establish a dependent allowance to allow parents and caregivers to fulfill their obligations: Households with children are much more likely to face food and housing insecurity when a job is lost. Dependent allowances, already enacted in 13 states, can help mitigate these harms by recognizing the added burdens that caregivers face. Policymakers should adopt similar measures and define dependents broadly to reflect the diversity of family structures and care responsibilities.
• Make short-term compensation (“work-sharing”) more appealing for employers and workers: During economic downturns, employers often resort to layoffs to reduce costs, harming workers financially and businesses in lost skilled labor. Under a short-time compensation (STC) (or “work-sharing” arrangement), firms can reduce employee hours instead eliminating jobs, while UI benefits partially offset lost wages for workers. Currently 33 states have STC programs in place, but utilization remains uneven and low relative to comparable programs in OECD nations. States can strengthen STC programs by making firms of all sizes eligible, removing experience rating penalties, allowing employers to certify reductions in hours on behalf of workers, and ensuring earnings from other jobs are not counted against workers’ STC benefits. The Washington Center for Equitable Growth provides additional recommendations for reducing administrative barriers and engaging in employer outreach and education.

Step III: Modernize unemployment insurance to reflect the needs of a 21st century economy

The unemployment insurance system, designed in the 1930s, no longer reflects the realities of today’s workforce. It excludes many gig, part-time, and irregular workers, and inherits frameworks that are rooted in racism and sexism. Lawmakers should adopt more expansive frameworks for UI eligibility and accessibility by taking action to:

• Set progressive benefit levels that truly alleviate economic hardship: Policymakers can ensure UI systems truly alleviate economic hardship and strengthen worker bargaining power, while targeting those workers most in need, by progressively structuring benefits. A smart approach would replace at least 85% of wages for the lowest earners, gradually scaling down to 50% for high earners, and 30% for very high earners.
• Increase benefits duration to ensure workers have sufficient runway and better prospects when reentering the workforce: Evidence shows that when workers have a longer benefit runway, they have better reemployment outcomes, find jobs that better match their skills, earn higher wages, and are more likely to remain on the job. States should guarantee a minimum of 30 weeks of potential regular UI benefit duration.
• Raise or remove the ceiling on the taxable wage base: Policymakers can truly address solvency concerns by dynamically increasing or eliminating caps on taxable wage bases. States should set the TWB to at least half of the Social Security taxable wage limit ($176,100 as of 2025). Several states have successfully increased their TWBs by indexing to a high proportion of the average worker’s wage. Whether by raising the cap, indexing it to wages, or relinking it to the Social Security base, modernizing the taxable wage base would strengthen trust fund solvency and create fairer contributions across employers of low- and high-wage workers.
• Reform experience rating to eliminate harmful incentives to fight legitimate UI claims: Federal law requires states to adopt rules such that employers with higher rates of separations pay higher UI taxes. This approach, known as “experience rating” encourages workforce stability and helps ensure equity among employers by charging more of those who draw more heavily against unemployment trust funds. However, these rules create the perverse incentive for employers to block legitimate claims by encouraging workers to not file, challenging claims, or structuring their workforce to minimize the number of employees eligible for UI, such as relying on part-time or contract labor. States can remove these harmful incentives by experience rating employers based on changes in the number of hours worked by their employees or the number of workers they employ. Alaska, for example, implemented a “payroll decline quotient” method which ties tax rates to changes in payroll over time instead of the number of claims made by workers. Further, since some firms are indifferent to additional layoffs because of a capped experience rating tax, states can impose penalties on firms that persistently remain at the cap.
• Expand eligibility to all workers with demonstrated attachment to the labor force: State monetary eligibility rules should be reformed to guarantee coverage for all workers who demonstrate clear labor force participation. Rather than relying solely on workers meeting specific earnings thresholds, states should also allow workers to qualify based on hours worked. Specifically, any individual who works at least 300 hours during two quarters of a base period should qualify. This means a worker who performed 15 hours of work per week for 20 weeks across two quarters would be eligible for UI. Hours from all work arrangements should be counted toward the 300-hour minimum, given that low-paid workers often hold multiple jobs across different employers. States should also extend the base period for determining eligibility to six quarters of work, to prevent low-paid, seasonal, and temporary workers from falling through the cracks. Oregon is currently the only state with a hybrid model allowing workers to qualify based on either earnings or hours.
• Reform work-search requirements to account for issues that workers commonly face: Overly onerous work-search requirements increase benefit denials while failing to save money for UI programs. States should ensure work-search requirements are not so burdensome that active jobseekers lose UI benefits before finding a new and suitable job. For instance, states should allow workers to continue receiving benefits if they have good cause for missing an appointment or work-search verification. If a worker falls short of work-search requirements, they should lose benefits only for that week, instead of being permanently removed from the program. States should also allow workers engaged in education or training programs that may boost their employment prospects to continue receiving UI benefits. Further, they should ensure continuing eligibility for workers available for part-time work, not just those seeking full-time work.
• Enact strong suitable work requirements to boost worker reentry prospects: A core function of UI is to promote stable, quality reemployment; workers should remain eligible for UI if they decline a job that is a poor match for their skills or of substandard quality. The National Employment Law Project provides recommendations that states can adopt to ensure strong suitable work criteria, including: 1) comparing the wage offered by a new job to the occupation’s prevailing wage and factoring in the worker’s expertise, training, and experience; 2) maintaining standards of suitable work that do not weaken based on the length of unemployment; and 3) reviewing offers for temporary employment under a lens of prevailing labor market conditions.
• Expand eligibility criteria to cover workers compelled to leave their jobs for valid reasons: Historically, the UI program has failed to account for many of the reasons that might compel a worker to leave their job. States should adopt stronger good-cause quits provisions that include reasons such as leaving due to unsafe conditions, caregiving responsibilities, or harassment, while exploring broader eligibility criteria that provide benefits to workers who quit.
• Extend UI eligibility to striking workers: Allow workers engaged in labor disputes to access UI benefits under the same rules as other unemployed workers. While some states impose extra waiting periods for striking workers, policymakers should adopt no or minimal additional delays.
• Establish joblessness protections for independent contractors, self-employed, and undocumented workers: To function as a true safety net UI should cover all labor force participants, including self-employed workers, independent contractors, and undocumented workers who lose work. In recent years, California, Colorado, and New York have pioneered successful initiatives for covering contractors, self-employed, and undocumented workers. States should explore options for establishing similar programs to ensure workers excluded from traditional UI have access to similar safety net protections.
• Adopt clear legal standards to combat worker misclassification: When workers are wrongfully classified as independent contractors, they lose the labor protections of W-2 employees, including UI eligibility. Misclassification imposes heavy costs on both workers and state trust funds. Policymakers can address this by adopting Pennsylvania’s model, which presumes that any worker performing services is an employee unless the employer proves that 1) the worker is free from the employer’s control or direction in performing work and 2) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or business.
• Design programs to protect workers’ privacy: While some states have expanded wage records to include details such as occupation, industry, or work hours to better evaluate job quality and improve services, UI programs should ensure workers can apply for benefits without risking retaliation or exposure of sensitive personal data. The Century Foundation and Immigration Research Initiative recommend limiting data collection to what is necessary, prohibiting disclosure for nonprogram purposes, and requiring data safeguards, while allowing applicants to self-attest wherever possible. To ensure accountability, violations of privacy rules should carry clear penalties. This year, Maryland lawmakers introduced legislation to protect state databases from unauthorized sharing and immigration inquiries, offering model language for policymakers seeking to protect state data more broadly.

Additional recommended resources

• National Employment Law Project (NELP)’s State Unemployment Insurance Policy Hub;
• Reforming Unemployment Insurance: Stabilizing a System in Crisis and Laying the Foundation for Equity—a joint report of the Center for American Progress, Center for Popular Democracy, Economic Policy Institute, Groundwork Collaborative, National Employment Law Project, National Women’s Law Center, and Washington Center for Equitable Growth;
• The Century Foundation’s Unemployment Insurance Data Dashboard. 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 8, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and clarify the need to increase UI funding both to strengthen benefits and ensure effective UI program administration.

The overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provide protections to most hourly workers and many low-salaried workers, guaranteeing time-and-a-half pay for hours worked in excess of 40 a week. FLSA overtime rules apply to all private businesses with annual revenue of at least $500,000, as well as hospitals, care centers, schools, and public agencies. Because federal law otherwise sets no limits on the hours employers can require people to work (and no requirements for rest breaks or days off), overtime pay is an especially important policy to disincentivize overwork and encourage employers to share work across more employees, bolstering hiring.

What are the threats to federal overtime protections?

Current threats to overtime pay include:

• Excluding workers from overtime by lowering the salary threshold for automatic eligibility: The first Trump administration took action to lower the salary threshold at which workers become automatically eligible for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week, denying eligibility to millions of low-salaried workers. It is widely anticipated that the second Trump administration will likewise block a new proposed rule to raise the salary threshold, again denying coverage to millions of workers who earn between $35,568 and $58,656 (likely by refusing to defend the rule against ongoing court challenges from business groups).
• Stripping overtime coverage from direct care workers: The Trump administration has proposed rule changes that would reverse a 2013 regulation expanding overtime coverage to include “direct care” workers, such as home health aides and certified nursing assistants, employed by agencies.
• Allowing employers to deny overtime pay: Proposals laid out in Project 2025 recommend altering the FLSA to allow employers broad new discretion to deny workers overtime pay by altering calculations of what counts as a workweek, substituting time off in place of overtime pay, and/or deeming remote employees ineligible for overtime pay.
• Increasing likelihood of underpayment or nonpayment of overtime: Failure to pay overtime is one of the most common forms of wage theft, and diminished U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) capacity to enforce wage and hour laws will exacerbate this problem.

How can states maintain and strengthen overtime protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own overtime standards so long as they are at least as protective as those in the FLSA; federal overtime laws set a floor above which states can adopt and enforce their own stronger standards. Given the very real risk that aspects of FLSA overtime protections could be eliminated (or will go unenforced), it is important for states to at least lock in existing FLSA overtime protections. Additionally, states should seek to go beyond the current floor, as some FLSA provisions—such as those exempting certain categories of workers from overtime—are long overdue for an update.

Step I: Update state statutes to lock in current federal protections

Because for decades most states have deferred to the FLSA’s overtime standard and relied at least in part on federal enforcement of overtime laws, existing overtime language in state statutes is often outdated, incomplete, or inadequate. For example:

• Minnesota state law only requires overtime after 48 hours of work in a week; in Kansas it is 46. These laws are of no practical import right now, because the FLSA overrules them, but in the absence of FLSA protections, workers in these states would have to work more hours to qualify for overtime.
• In several states—including Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and others—there is no state statutory right to overtime. At present, workers with unpaid overtime claims in these states can only go to the federal government for redress, meaning that if DOL lacks adequate enforcement capacity, workers’ recourse may become limited. Moreover, while the FLSA currently covers workers in all states, if FLSA overtime protections disappear, workers would have no right to overtime pay at all in these and other states with no overtime language in state code.
• Some states, like Hawaii and Michigan, do require overtime pay after 40 hours in a workweek but currently exclude employment that is subject to the FLSA from state coverage. States with such exclusions should remove them to ensure consistent state coverage and enforcement jurisdiction, rather than expecting some workers to rely solely on tenuous federal overtime standards and enforcement.

Many states, such as New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania, already mirror the basic overtime provisions of the FLSA, guaranteeing overtime pay after 40 hours in a workweek. Lawmakers in other states should act quickly to ensure their state codes at a minimum follow suit. There is no harm in codifying overtime protections in state law even if federal standards don’t change, whereas delaying updates to state law puts workers at risk of real harm if federal protections are diminished or left unenforced.

One legislative model for states to consider is the 2025 “trigger law” enacted in Illinois that directs state agencies to ensure all state wage and hour standards remain at least as protective as existing federal wage and hour standards in the event that federal standards are weakened or eliminated. 

State overtime rules, if they exist, are typically part of state labor and employment or wage and hour statutes. Policymakers and advocates should review their state’s laws to assess whether overtime language codifies at least the same level of protection currently provided under the FLSA and to ensure that the state has the power to enforce its own overtime laws without relying on the federal government.

Step II: Close critical gaps in overtime coverage

While the FLSA sets an important floor for overtime pay, it is an 80-year-old statute with notable gaps in coverage that state policymakers should try to close. Priority steps states can take to update overtime coverage include:

1. Eliminate occupational exemptions: Agricultural workers are not covered by the FLSA, a racist holdover from when the act was initially passed in 1938. And while some domestic service workers such as nannies and house cleaners were covered in 1974, certain home care workers providing care for seniors and persons with disabilities remain excluded. A 2013 Obama-era rule that extended coverage to many home care workers is at risk of being rolled back by the Trump DOL. Other exceptions apply to smaller categories of workers. States have it in their power to eliminate these exemptions. For example, several states—including California, Washington, and Colorado—already cover agricultural workers under state minimum wage and overtime laws. And some states like California have already taken action in 2025 to ensure that state law will guarantee home care workers overtime pay in response to proposals to remove existing federal protections. 
2. Raise and automatically update the salary threshold for exemption of workers in executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) jobs: Currently, workers in EAP roles are exempt from FLSA overtime requirements if they earn more than $684 per week. The Biden administration issued a rule to update that threshold to $844 per week in 2024, $1,128 per week in 2025, and to automatically adjust for inflation thereafter. This rule was blocked by the courts and there is every expectation that the Trump administration will not defend the new rule. States can move to lock in the new threshold and assure regular future updates. Six states—Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, New York, and Washington—already have an EAP salary threshold above the federal level. For example, Washington will by 2028 remove the exemption for any employee making the equivalent of 2.5 times the state minimum wage or less. Because the state minimum wage is indexed to inflation, the state’s salary threshold will continue to rise with the state minimum wage.

Step III: Modernize overtime policies to fit today’s economy, improve safety and productivity, and promote work-life balance

In addition to codifying FLSA overtime rules and closing coverage gaps, there are many steps states can take to serve priority policy goals like preventing overwork, stabilizing work schedules, and increasing work-life balance. Indeed, overtime pay was incorporated into the 1938 FLSA as a compromise, following decades of international worker struggles for the eight-hour day and during a period of intense debate over whether public policy should place some limits on the often near-absolute control many employers exerted over workers’ time. These are questions worth revisiting in the context of state policymaking today, when overtime pay alone has failed to curb excessive use of forced overtime or scheduling practices that in some industries include dangerously long shifts or months of consecutive shifts with no days off, both of which are closely correlated with declining productivity and adverse health and safety impacts.

1. Add overtime pay to discourage excessively long shifts, encourage periodic days off, and promote fair scheduling. Many state laws include useful examples of overtime policies targeted at discouraging excessive consecutive hours of work or days of work without time off:
   • California mandates that workers receive double time (not just time-and-a-half) after 12 hours of work in a day.
   • In Alaska, overtime pay applies to all eligible employees working more than eight hours in a day. Other states have more limited expansions; for example, Oregon requires manufacturing employers to begin paying overtime after 10 straight hours.
   • A number of states, including Alaska, Florida, Nevada, and Oregon, make some employees eligible for overtime pay after a certain shift length, regardless of the number of hours worked in the week.
   • Kentucky requires overtime pay for all work done on a seventh straight day of work. California requires overtime pay for all work done beyond eight hours on a seventh straight day of work.
   • Fair scheduling laws, which Oregon and a number of cities have adopted, similarly require employers to provide advance notice of schedules and extra pay for schedule changes. Some laws also crack down on “clopenings”—the practice of requiring an employee to work late in the evening and start again early the next morning—by requiring extra pay for shifts within 12 hours of each other.
2. Guarantee rights to refuse excessive forced overtime: States could also ensure that hourly workers have the right to decline excessive overtime hours without fear of retaliation. For example, Maine proposed legislation to protect overworked paper industry workers—who were sometimes forced to work 24-hour shifts—guaranteeing a right to refuse more than two hours of overtime in a day, and requiring seven days advance notice of schedules.
3. Expand overtime laws to incentivize transitions to shorter work weeks: Well before passage of the FLSA and up to the present day, workers and advocates have proposed that productivity gains should result in shorter work hours (with no loss of pay). Numerous versions of proposals to move to a four-day or 32-hour standard work week have been introduced in several states, including pilot and study bills. State expansions of overtime pay to hours worked beyond 32 in a week (or other numbers less than 40) could help incentivize shifts toward shorter work weeks.
4. Look to tested overtime language in collective bargaining agreements for policy models: Collective bargaining agreements negotiated between unions and employers often contain more expansive overtime and scheduling provisions that can serve as models for more ambitious policy ideas. For example, language in such agreements may list additional circumstances when overtime or other forms of premium pay are required for work on weekends, holidays, on-call hours, or following scheduling changes. These agreements may also set out processes for workers to accept or decline additional work hours or new shift assignments, timelines for employers to provide notice of work schedules, fair procedures for assigning overtime, and more.

Additional recommended resources 

• State minimum wage [and overtime] laws (U.S. Department of Labor) 

• Overtime laws by state (Bloomberg Law) 

• Explaining the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule that will benefit 4.3 million workers (Economic Policy Institute) 
• Home care worker rights in the states after the federal companionship rules change-2013 (National Employment Law Project; note that this resource is an excellent tool for identifying relevant state code sections, but may not reflect more recent changes to state laws) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section and include updates on federal and state policy developments that took place after initial publication. 

This November, Alaska voters will decide whether to increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2027.{{1}} This new wage floor will produce significant increases for Alaska’s low-wage workers, helping them make ends meet amid high costs of living throughout the state. The minimum wage increase will help lock in the wage gains low-wage workers have experienced during the economic recovery from the pandemic and will create greater equity by disproportionately lifting wages for women, workers of color, and parents. 

Key findings

• Alaska’s current minimum wage falls short of providing true economic security for low-wage workers. A modest estimate of a living wage for Anchorage residents is $18.58 an hour.
• The proposed minimum wage increase would lift wages for 30,800 workers, roughly ten percent (9.7%) of Alaska’s wage-earning workforce. In total, the increase would put $51,141,000 in the pockets of workers. 
• More than half (55.1%) of workers that would get a wage increase are women. The minimum wage increases would also disproportionately benefit workers of color. Hispanic workers make up 13.3% of the affected workers; and American Indian, Alaska Native, and multiracial workers are 22.7% of the workers receiving wage increases. 
• Minimum wage workers are from all walks of life. Most workers getting an increase—78.4%—would be 20 years old or older. Nearly 1 in 5 (19.1%) are parents.

Why Alaska’s current minimum wage falls short

Alaska’s current minimum wage ($11.73 an hour as of January 1, 2024) falls short of covering the basic expenses of working people in the state.{{2}} EPI’s Family Budget Calculator (FBC) measures the monthly and annual costs families need to afford a modest standard of living in each county in the United States. (In Alaska, the primary substate jurisdictions are boroughs.) These estimates include essential expenses for a secure life including food, housing, health care, and transportation, but omit other expenses many would consider critical, such as retirement and education savings. The FBC estimates can also be customized to account for families of various sizes and with different numbers of children.

Table 1 shows the annual expenses for households in the five most populous boroughs in Alaska, which in total contain 80% of the state’s population (AK DOLWD 2020). Even in the least expensive of these boroughs, Anchorage, a single adult must cover expenses of $47,713 to reach the Family Budget Calculator’s threshold for a modest, but secure, standard of living. For a family with two adults and two children, those expenses rise to $118,206. The Family Budget Calculator allocates families with children significantly higher living costs due to increased need in all major expense categories and the addition of child care expenses.

Table 1

The FBC numbers provide a useful benchmark for assessing the adequacy of the minimum wage. However, translating family expenses into a single estimate of a “living wage” requires making judgments about the type of household the living wage should cover. A working adult living alone does not need to earn as much as a working caregiver with two young children to provide for.

A conservative choice for a living wage would be one that covers the basic expenses of only single, childless adults who work full time and year-round. To be even more conservative, we can also assume that some of these workers’ expenses will be covered by income other than wages—such as employer-provided health insurance or government-provided social insurance or means-tested benefits (e.g., housing or food assistance). A reasonable assumption would be that the workers’ wages only need to cover 81% of their expenses, and that the remaining 19% will be covered by non-wage income and social insurance and means-tested transfers, based on Congressional Budget Office data on income sources for households at different levels of household income (Gould, Mokhiber, and deCourcy 2024).

Even in this scenario, Alaska’s current minimum wage is not enough. In Juneau, the most expensive borough listed, a conservative living wage would be $19.65 an hour today. Meanwhile, in Anchorage, the living wage would be $18.58. Thus, increasing the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2027 will not fully achieve a living wage for all Alaskans, but it would be an important step toward greater economic security for working families. 

Breaking down the benefits of a minimum wage increase

Table 2 shows the proposed ballot measure’s schedule for increasing the minimum wage in Alaska. If passed, the minimum wage will increase from its current level of $11.73 to $13.00 at the beginning of 2025. The minimum wage would rise again in 2026 to $14.00 and once more to $15.00 in 2027. Beginning in 2028, the minimum wage would be automatically adjusted for inflation every year thereafter to protect the buying power of the minimum wage if prices increase. Importantly, Alaska is one of seven states where employers must pay tipped workers such as bartenders, waitstaff, barbers, and hairstylists at least the full minimum wage, regardless of any earnings from tips (Hickey 2023).

Table 2

Raising the minimum wage will provide significant wage increases for tens of thousands of workers in the state. Through 2027, Alaska’s minimum wage increase will lift wages for 30,800 workers, roughly ten percent (9.7%) of Alaska’s wage-earning workforce. In total, the increase will put $51,141,000 in the pockets of workers impacted by the change. The wages of a typical full-time, year-round worker would increase by $1,659 a year. And these effects go beyond workers who benefit directly from the minimum wage increase. For a directly affected worker, the new minimum has a higher value than their current wage, so their employer must increase their wage to comply with the law. But there are also indirectly affected workers earning slightly above the new minimum wage threshold who will benefit from the change because research shows that employers adjust their wage ladders in response to the new minimum wage (Cooper, Mokhiber, and Zipperer 2019). 

Raising the minimum wage would have powerful equity ramifications for Alaskan workers. Table 3 shows that despite being less than half (46.2%) of workers in Alaska, women make up 55.1% of the workers who would benefit from the increase. While white workers will be the most impacted by the minimum wage as a group (with more than 14,000 white workers receiving increases), Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), and multiracial workers will all disproportionately benefit from the increase. Hispanic workers are 7.4% of Alaska’s workforce but make up 13.3% of the affected workers. Similarly, AIAN and multiracial workers are 16.7% of the workforce, but 22.7% of the workers getting a raise. Increasing the minimum wage will help narrow gaps between workers by gender, race, and ethnicity. 

The increases will also provide critical support for Alaskans living in poverty. Over 20% of the workers getting an increase have incomes below the federal poverty line, and 47.4% earn less than 200% of the poverty line.{{3}} Research has found that the raising the minimum wage can significantly reduce poverty (Godoey and Reich 2021). 

Table 3

Minimum wage workers come from many walks of life and are at different points of their career. Almost four-fifths (78.4%) of workers getting increases will be 20 years old or older. Almost 40% will be prime-age workers between 25 and 55. Almost half (45.2%) of the affected workers are full-time. Although most minimum wage workers have a high school degree or less education, 38.2% have completed at least some college coursework.{{4}} Minimum wage workers are also parents and caregivers. Nearly 5,900 workers (19.1%) getting a raise have children. In total, we estimate that 23,600 children live in households that will benefit from the increase. 

Raising the minimum wage will lock in wage gains for low-wage workers 

In recent years, Alaskan workers have had to navigate rising prices. At the same time, the economic recovery from the pandemic has produced once-in-a-generation wage growth for low-wage Alaskan workers. Increasing the minimum wage would help workers lock in gains before the end of another business cycle. Doing so would help preserve a more equitable economy in Alaska.

Figure A shows the minimum wage, median wage, and 10th percentile wage in Alaska from 1991–2023 in constant (i.e., inflation-adjusted) 2023 dollars. The median wage (at the 50th percentile) is the wage of someone in the middle of the distribution—what might be considered the wage of a typical middle-class worker. The 10th percentile is the wage of someone closer to the bottom of the wage distribution who makes more than 10% of all workers but less than 90% of all workers.

From 2019 to 2023, real 10th percentile wages in Alaska grew from $12.40 to $14.12, the quickest growth rate (13.9%) of any state in the Pacific Census Division and slightly faster than the U.S. overall (13.5%).{{5}} This rapid wage growth was no accident. Key federal policy decisions including expanded unemployment insurance, economic impact payments, aid to states and localities, child tax credits, and protection from eviction helped families weather the pandemic recession and maintain regular levels of spending (Gould and deCourcy 2024). Millions of low-wage workers could stay home without risking their health and lives to work. As a result, when the economy reopened, employers had to work harder to attract and retain workers. A competitive labor market with low unemployment forced employers to pay higher wages to recruit workers. 

Of course, the strong labor market and resulting strong wage growth will not last forever. And it is in periods of labor market slack when workers have less leverage that policies like the minimum wage are essential for protecting low-wage workers’ earnings. During the most recent economic recovery, both states with and without minimum wage increases have seen strong wage growth for low-wage workers. But during the recovery from the Great Recession when labor market conditions were not favorable to workers, the wage growth in states with minimum wage increases strongly outperformed states without those increases (Gould and deCourcy 2024).

Figure A

This strong wage growth for low-wage workers also created a more equitable wage distribution in Alaska. In 2022, the Alaskan 10th percentile wage was $14.59, which was 59.0% of the median wage of $24.72, a high-water mark since at least 1979. Before the pandemic, the 10th percentile wage had not exceeded 52.4% of the median wage.{{6}} This means that in the last two years, low-wage workers in Alaska have been paid wages closer to those of typical middle-class workers than at any point in more than four decades.{{7}} This condensed wage distribution means economic prosperity is being shared more equally across workers in the economy.

The minimum wage can be a tool for improving and sustaining equity by ensuring that the wage for the lowest paid job is not too far from that of a middle-income job. Research has found that from 1979 to 2012, almost 39% of the increase in inequality between the median worker and workers at the 10th percentile can be attributed to declining minimum wages (Zipperer 2015b). Comparing the minimum wage share of the 50th percentile wage indicates how far the distance is between the lowest paid worker and a typical worker. As a benchmark, in 1968 the federal minimum wage was at its highest real value and was worth 52% of the median wage (Zipperer 2015a). Figure B shows that since 1991, Alaska’s minimum wage has generally increased as a share of the median wage in the state but has never exceeded 50% of the median wage.

Figure B

Within this story of general progress, there are periods of stagnation where the minimum wage has declined in value. From 1999 to 2002, the minimum wage share of the median wage declined by 5.9 percentage points. From 2004 to 2009, it declined by 6.9 percentage points. Both declines occurred during multi-year periods when the minimum wage was not proactively increased.

In recent years, Alaska’s minimum wage has once again experienced a significant decline in value. From 2018 to 2023, the minimum wage share of the median wage has decreased by 5.6 percentage points. This decline has occurred in spite of Alaska’s 2014 decision to index its minimum wage to annual inflation growth.{{8}} Without indexing, Alaska’s minimum wage value would have eroded even more quickly, but the historic conditions of the pandemic recovery mean that this prudent step has still not been enough. A proactive increase is needed to bring the minimum wage back to a level where it is creating a more equitable economy in Alaska. 

In addition to promoting equity, the minimum wage also serves as a backstop that protects the earnings of low-wage workers during weak and strong labor markets. In an economic downturn, without a strong minimum wage floor, there’s greater potential for backsliding of wages. To effectively support low-wage workers, the minimum wage can’t fall too far behind the going rate of low-wage labor. Even at times when wage growth is strong for low-wage workers, it is important for the minimum wage to keep pace with increases in earnings. 

The recent strong wage growth in Alaska means the minimum wage’s level has decreased compared with low-wage workers’ earnings. Figure C shows that in 2019, Alaska’s minimum wage was $9.89, more than 95% of the 10th percentile wage. However, in 2022, the minimum wage was only 73.8% of the 10th percentile wage, its lowest share since at least 1991. In 2023, the minimum wage value grew slightly, but was still only 76.8% of the 10th percentile wage.

Since 1991, the only other occasions when the minimum wage’s value fell below 76% of the 10th percentile wage were in 1996 and 2001–2002. Both times were preceded by periods where the minimum wage stagnated for at least five years without an increase. Alaskans recognized on both occasions that the minimum wage was too low and increased it. During the pandemic recovery, the value of Alaska’s minimum wage has eroded once again. To protect the gains that Alaska’s low-wage workers have experienced, the minimum wage should be increased to bring its value back into the range of what has historically been the case. 

Figure C

How will raising the minimum wage affect employment? 

Raising the minimum wage will provide an economic boost to low-wage workers without hurting employment in Alaska. Concern that raising the minimum wage hurts low-wage workers has been refuted consistently by high-quality research. A comprehensive review of 30 years of minimum wage research found at most a muted effect on employment (Dube 2019). Another study focused only on the highest minimum wages enacted at state or local levels showed no evidence of reduction in the number of jobs for low-wage workers (Cengiz et al. 2019). A study of 21 city-level minimum wage increases found that they raised wages with little effect on the number of jobs (Dube and Lindner 2021). 

These research findings imply that in the low-wage labor market, employers have significant power over their workers, and higher minimum wages can help to correct some of this imbalance of power. The empirical research shows that when the minimum wage is raised, low-wage workers’ paychecks increase, and businesses can adjust through channels that don’t require laying off workers (Zipperer 2023). For instance, higher labor costs from the rising minimum wage can be offset by other cost savings.

Some of these cost savings result from decreased turnover. Most low-wage jobs have extremely high turnover rates, but when workers are paid more, they tend to stay at their current jobs longer. This cuts down on the time workers spend between jobs without getting paid and means businesses are spending less money on recruitment and training. Workers also might become more productive, both because of working in the same role longer and because of valuing their job more.

Employers also react to minimum wage increases by passing some of their cost increases on to consumers although research shows that the resulting price increases tend to be very small (Allegretto and Reich 2016). This effect does not seem to reduce the demand for the services in the industries most affected by minimum wage increases, perhaps because all businesses must raise their costs simultaneously, so consumers cannot discriminate by price. The minimum wage could also increase consumer demand by putting more money in the pockets of low-wage workers, who are more likely than business owners and higher income households to spend every additional dollar in the local economy. 

Conclusion 

Increasing Alaska’s minimum wage would strengthen the economic security of working people in the state. The wage benefits that the increase will bring are much needed for low-wage working people who face living expenses far in excess of the current minimum wage. In addition, the proposed ballot measure further supports the economic well-being and dignity of working Alaskans by providing them with paid sick leave and prohibiting employers from retaliating against workers who refuse to attend employer-sponsored religious or political meetings.{{9}} Implementing these policies would create a stronger and more inclusive state economy. 

Appendix Table 1

Notes

{{1.}} If passed, the ballot measure would also provide Alaskan workers with paid sick leave and allow them to opt out of attending unsolicited political and religious meetings in the workplace.

{{2.}} See the Economic Policy Institute’s Minimum Wage Tracker for all state and local minimum wage rates (EPI 2024c).

{{3.}} Although 200% of the poverty line reflects an income level that is not technically poor, many families and individuals at that income level still struggle to make ends meet and achieve economic security. In 2024, the official poverty threshold for a 4-person household in in Alaska is $39,000 (HHS 2024).

{{4.}} Workers with at least some college coursework include those with some college education, but no degree; an associate degree; and either a bachelor’s degree or higher.

{{5.}} EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata (EPI 2024a).

{{6.}} The 10th percentile wage was 52.4% from 2004–2005.

{{7.}} Low-wage workers also made gains compared with high-wage workers. In 2022, the 10th percentile wage was 26.5% of the 90th percentile wage, a high point since at least 1979.

{{8.}} Alaska’s minimum wage did not increase in 2022 because the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Anchorage did not increase in 2021 (EPI 2024c).

{{9.}} For more on paid sick leave, see Gould and Wething 2023. For more on mandatory religious and political meetings, see Perez and Sherer 2023.

References

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (AK DOLWD). 2020. Alaska Population Overview: 2019 Estimates. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, December 2020. 

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (AK DOLWD). 2024. “Minimum Wage Standard and Overtime Hours” (web page). Accessed March 25, 2024. 

Alaska Division of Elections (AK DOE). 2023. Alaska’s Minimum Labor Standards Initiative, n.d.

Allegretto, Sylvia, and Michael Reich. 2016. “Are Local Minimum Wages Absorbed by Price Increases? Estimates from Internet-Based Restaurant Menus.” ILR Review 71, no. 1: 35–63. 

Cengiz, Doruk, Arindrajit Dube, Attila Lindner, and Ben Zipperer. 2019. “The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134, no. 3 : 1405–1454 (August 2019). 

Cooper, David, Zane Mokhiber, and Ben Zipperer. 2019. Minimum Wage Simulation Model Technical Methodology. Economic Policy Institute, February 26, 2019. 

Dube, Arindrajit. 2019. “Impacts of Minimum Wages: Review of the International Evidence.” Report Prepared for Her Majesty’s Treasury (UK), November 2019. 

Dube, Arindrajit, and Attila Lindner. 2021. “City Limits: What Do Local-Area Minimum Wages Do?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 35, no. 1 (Winter): 27–50. 

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2024a. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.49, https://microdata.epi.org. 

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2024b. Family Budget Calculator. Last updated January 31, 2024. 

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2024c. Minimum Wage Tracker. Last updated March 1, 2024. 

Godoey, Anna, and Michael Reich. 2021. “Are Minimum Wage Effects Greater in Low-Wage Areas?” Industrial Relations 60, no. 1: 36–83. 

Gould, Elise, and Katherine deCourcy. 2024. Fastest Wage Growth over the Last Four Years Among Historically Disadvantaged Groups: Low-Wage Workers’ Wages Surged After Decades of Slow Growth. Economic Policy Institute, March 2024.

Gould, Elise, Zane Mokhiber, and Katherine deCourcy. 2024. What Constitutes a Living Wage? A Guide to Using EPI’s Family Budget Calculator. Economic Policy Institute, January 2024. 

Gould, Elise, and Hilary Wething. 2023. Paid Sick Leave Access Expands with Widespread State Action: Low-Wage Workers Without Access Face Economic and Health Insecurity. Economic Policy Institute, November 2023. 

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez. 2023. “Twenty-Two States Will Increase Their Minimum Wages on January 1, Raising Pay for Nearly 10 Million Workers.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), December 21, 2023. 

Perez, Daniel, and Jennifer Sherer. 2023. “Tackling the Problem of ‘Captive Audience’ Meetings: How States Are Stepping Up to Protect Workers’ Rights and Freedoms.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute). October 24, 2023. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 2024. “HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2024” (web page). Accessed April 29, 2024. 

Zipperer, Ben. 2015a. Bolstering the Bottom by Indexing the Minimum Wage to the Median Wage. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, June 2015. 

Zipperer, Ben. 2015b. How Raising the Minimum Wage Ripples Through the Workforce. Washington Center for Equitable Growth, April 2015. 

Zipperer, Ben. 2023. “Turnover, Prices, and Reallocation: Why Minimum Wages Raise the Incomes of Low-Wage Workers.” Journal of Law and Political Economy 3, no. 1: 160–171. 

Political and religious coercion in the workplace is a growing problem affecting workers from all backgrounds and across the political spectrum. U.S. employers have tremendous power over worker conduct under current federal laws. For example, employers can require workers to attend “captive audience” meetings—and force employees to listen to political, religious, or anti-union employer views—on work time.

In the face of this growing threat, legislators in 18 states have advanced bills to protect workers from offensive or unwanted political and religious speech unrelated to job tasks or performance. These bills are designed to prohibit employers from threatening, disciplining, firing, or retaliating against workers who refuse to attend mandatory workplace meetings focused on communicating opinions on political or religious matters.

Importantly, these state laws do not limit employers’ rights to express their beliefs freely or even to continue inviting employees to attend workplace political or religious meetings. These laws simply empower workers to opt out of unwelcome political speech by protecting them from financial harm or retaliation if they choose not to attend such meetings.

A growing number of states are taking action to protect workers’ freedom of thought and association

So far, six states have enacted laws designed to protect employees’ dignity and freedom of thought and association. Table 1 summarizes these laws, additional bills currently under consideration, as well as bills that have been previously proposed.

Table 1

Because most workers (in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement) are considered “at-will” employees who can be terminated at any time, employers often try to exercise vast authority over employees’ lives, including their political activities or freedom of association.

This power is routinely abused to coerce workers into attending political rallies, religious discussions, or anti-union meetings under the threat of disciplinary action. State legislators, however, are working to fill the void left by continued congressional inaction. State legislation that creates a minimum labor standard to protect workers from abusive forms of employer coercion can help workers more fully exercise their basic rights.

Current labor and employment laws allow bosses to bombard workers with politics and religion

Employers are increasingly using the workplace to advance their political interests, and the lack of legal protections for workers has created a situation ripe for coercion. Traditionally, employers have relied on donations, lobbying, and political action committees to advance their political interests. However, nearly universal “at-will” employment laws and recent legal rulings are emboldening employers to politically mobilize their own employees.

Pervasive “at-will” employment laws give employers the right to terminate workers without cause or for virtually any reason—including their political beliefs. And the 2010 landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending and gave employers the green light to hold political captive audience meetings. In tandem, these laws have had dire implications for workers and the democratic process.

A 2015 study revealed how widespread political communication is in U.S. workplaces. One in four U.S. workers has been contacted by their employer regarding a political matter. Of these workers, 20% (representing 5% of all U.S. workers) received messages from their boss that included one or more threats of job loss, business closure, or changes to wages and hours. Under current federal labor and employment laws, it is perfectly legal for an employer to threaten, discipline, or terminate an employee for objecting to their boss’s political views.

Political coercion affects U.S. workers of all backgrounds and across the political spectrum. Consider the following examples in which workers were pressured to vote in specific ways or forced to donate to political campaigns or lobby other voters to support legislation.

• In 2014 at a ConocoPhillips’ site in Alaska, some 200 construction workers were called into a “safety stand-down” meeting—typically held after serious workplace incidents. Rather than addressing a safety concern, a ConocoPhillips’ representative discussed the company’s stance on the upcoming August primaries, emphasizing its opposition to a ballot measure to repeal a significant tax cut for oil companies. The message to the workers was that their jobs relied on tax breaks, and voting against the repeal could harm their industry and livelihoods. One worker described the meeting as an abuse of safety protocol, while others reported fearing for their jobs.
• During the 2012 election, presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke at an Ohio coal mine at the invitation of Murray Energy’s CEO, Robert Murray. Workers later said that mine operations were halted, and they were forced to attend the event without pay. Managerial staff also reported being pressured to donate to Murray Energy’s political action committee. Internal records later revealed that employee donations were monitored and that employees who failed to donate generously enough faced potential demotions and missed bonuses.
• In 2018, D.C. voters introduced Ballot Initiative 77 that would have raised the tipped wage from $3.33 to the regular minimum wage ($12.50 an hour at the time). Restaurant industry representatives embarked on a vigorous campaign opposing the initiative called “Save Our Tips,” warning of widespread restaurant closures and job losses. Around the city, restaurants displayed “Save Our Tips” and “NO on 77” signs. Some employers distributed weekly newsletters to employees featuring anti-Initiative 77 content and provided workers with instructions on how to vote on the initiative. Other employers held captive audience meetings during work hours to tell workers that Initiative 77 would harm them. Additionally, workers were encouraged to inform customers about the perceived negative impacts of the initiative.

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits religious discrimination by employers, religious coercion is rampant in U.S. workplaces. For example:

• In an infamous Oregon case, a formerly incarcerated worker of Native American descent attended weekly, hour-long Bible study sessions out of fear “that he wouldn’t be able to find other work” if he declined. Following six months of weekly attendance, the worker declined to attend further sessions and was subsequently fired.
• A North Carolina-based home renovation company required employees to attend daily worship sessions that included prayer and Bible reading. A lawsuit alleged that the company owner would track attendance and reprimand employees who were absent. Additionally, when a manager asked to be excused from prayer, the owner subsequently cut his pay and then fired him.
• Employees at a Long Island, New York, firm alleged they were compelled to pray, chant, and partake in spiritual interpersonal workshops as part of a program called “Onionhead.” Workers described the workplace as “cult-like” with religious ceremonies where incense was burned to purify the workspace and lights were dimmed to deter demons. Employees and later the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserted that employees who resisted were disciplined or terminated.

Employers use ‘captive audience’ meetings to support union-busting

Captive audience meetings have likewise become one of employers’ preferred union-busting tactics. Workers who express interest in unionizing are routinely required by employers to hear one-sided propaganda. Workers have no right to ask questions or hear opposing viewpoints during these meetings. Analysis of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections documents shows that 89% of all employers conduct captive audience meetings in response to unionization efforts. And the use of captive audience meetings caused the average union election win rate to fall from 73% to 47%.

Today, employers spend over $400 million per year on “union-avoidance” consultants, who specialize in using captive audience meetings along with a host of other tactics designed to intimidate and instill fear in workers for the purpose of union-busting. Legislation giving workers the right to opt out of captive audience meetings without fear of discipline or termination is fundamental to restoring workers’ basic right to organize without interference.

The unequal impact of coercive speech on workers

Legislation to protect workers from coercive speech is particularly important for the workers most likely to encounter discrimination at work.

Particularly vulnerable to such coercion are Black, brown, disabled, formerly incarcerated, LGBTQ, and other groups of workers who have historically faced discrimination and unequal treatment in the labor market. Structural racism and discrimination in the form of systematically higher unemployment rates, higher job search costs, lower wages, and greater tolerance for unfair treatment, put these workers in a disadvantaged position to resist employer abuses.

Further, the United States’ piecemeal approach to holding employers accountable for discrimination often puts the onus of enforcement on workers, leaves many exposed to retaliation, and excludes many of the most vulnerable workers altogether. Given the precarity of employment for non-union workers in the United States, there is a clear need for comprehensive and enforceable worker protections from coercive speech.

Conclusion: State-level solutions to coercion

State lawmakers have the power to fight back against employer coercion and address gaps in weak, outdated federal laws. States can legislate to protect workers from unwanted speech, as affirmed by the Supreme Court’s 1988 ruling Frisby v. Schultz. Many of the proposed state-level laws also have the advantage of offering quicker enforcement mechanisms than federal proceedings and include provisions for “injunctive relief” (emergency court intervention to immediately stop damaging employer behavior), restitution for lost wages, reinstatement with retained benefits and seniority, and coverage of attorney fees. As the national spotlight intensifies on growing economic inequality and decades-long erosion of workers’ rights, it is clear that state-led initiatives could play a pivotal role in shaping the future of worker rights in the U.S.

Legislators in all states should continue to build on existing momentum to protect the freedom to avoid offensive or unwanted political and religious speech at work. Lawmakers can enact enforcement mechanisms to protect workers against financial harm and retaliation if they opt out of such speech. This legislation will help safeguard democracy by protecting citizens from undue influence over their political views, donations, or votes; guaranteeing workers’ freedoms; and ensuring all workers can fully exercise their rights in the workplace.