What is happening?

At a time when working-class families are already facing a weakened job market, high prices, and general economic uncertainty due to erratic federal policy, Republicans in Congress seem committed to worsening their economic anxieties. The enhanced ACA premium tax credits, instituted with the American Rescue Plan (ARPA) and extended through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), were not extended through the Republican-led reconciliation budget. These credits have led to the largest increase in health insurance coverage since the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, and saved enrollees on average $705 annually in 2024.

Working-class families across the country will feel the implications of this policy failure as health insurance premiums rise (Groundwork Collaborative 2025). However, Black families, who face higher rates of poverty and uninsurance even under “normal” circumstances, are positioned to be hit especially hard by the loss of the enhanced subsidies. The loss of the premium tax credits is also set to economically drain the cities where lots of Black families live, especially those cities in states that neglected to expand health coverage through the ACA (Ortaliza 2025).

This analysis will focus on 10 major metro areas: Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.

Impact on Black families across 10 major metro areas

The Affordable Care Act, largely through its Medicaid expansion in 2014, set in motion a decade-long trend of falling rates of uninsurance throughout the country (Ortaliza, McGough, and Cox 2025; Hill et al. 2025). However, some states, particularly those throughout the South where the majority of Black Americans live and work, refused to expand Medicaid through the ACA (Childers 2023). Southern states’ refusal to expand access to Medicaid has meant lower coverage rates in those states and that a large share of Black Americans fall into what is known as the health insurance “coverage gap”; that is, they qualify for neither Medicaid nor traditional ACA subsidies (Lukens and Harker 2024). Even outside the coverage gap, many individuals who do qualify for ACA subsidies remain uninsured due to cost and enrollment difficulties.

The enhanced ACA premium tax credits do not eliminate racial disparities in health insurance coverage, nor do they close the coverage gap faced by Black Americans. However, the tax credits do make insurance more affordable, and thus practically more accessible, for those individuals who qualify. This increase in accessibility has led to the largest increase in Marketplace enrollment since the Medicaid expansion, with outsized increases among low-income individuals and in states that did not expand Medicaid. The loss of the tax credits would reverse hard-won progress made in reducing racial disparities in uninsurance rates (Buettgens et al. 2025).

Table 1

Figure A

Younger and healthier individuals are more likely to forgo coverage when faced with a sharp increase in the price of insurance compared with those who are less healthy and for whom coverage is less optional (Monaghan 2014). The expiration of the tax credits will therefore likely bring a knock-on increase in premiums as younger enrollees forgo coverage, since insurance premiums are cheaper for everyone when there is a large pool of healthier enrollees.

The remaining enrollees in the insurance pool of each metro area will also see premiums, and thus their health care spending, increase. Given that the states where larger shares of the Black population live are those set to be hit hardest by increased rates of uninsurance, we anticipate that the impact on consumption in metro areas in those states will be more severe.

Table 2

Access to health care in the United States is largely mediated by health insurance coverage. As a result, losing coverage in most cases means losing access to adequate and necessary care. Indeed, though access to health insurance does not guarantee affordability, uninsured adults are nearly twice as likely to report some difficulty in affording health care compared with those with insurance, with three-quarters either skipping or postponing needed care due to cost (Sparks et al. 2025).

Over time, a lack of access to adequate health care contributes to excess mortality. Black Americans are more likely to be uninsured, more likely to face difficulties in affording health care, and are thus more likely to postpone or skip care due to cost. To the extent that the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits does lead to reduced health care access, it will likely also lead to excess mortality (Sommers, Long, and Baicker 2014).

Table 3

The loss of the enhanced premium tax credits will have knock-on economic costs, in addition to the public health costs resulting from excess mortality and increased health care costs for remaining marketplace enrollees. We assume a multiplier of 1.8 for health care spending, meaning that every lost dollar in premium tax credits reduces economic activity in a given metro area by $1.80 (estimates range from a multiplier of 1.5 to 2; see methodology section). Metro areas with large Black populations in states that lack Medicaid expansion will face significant losses in economic activity from this reduction in federal spending.

Table 4

Metro areas with large Black populations will also suffer significant productivity losses due to diminished worker health, assuming a productivity loss of $1,650 per newly uninsured Black worker. Finally, we assume employers in these metro areas will pay an additional $4,000 annually due to increased costs associated with each newly uninsured Black worker. Each of these impacts is felt most acutely in places where losing the enhanced premium tax credits is most costly—that is, those MSAs with the largest Black populations facing precarity in their coverage status.

Table 5

Why is this happening?

The Republican reconciliation bill passed last summer gives a clear distillation of conservative priorities: They prioritize the well-being of the wealthiest households and corporations over that of working-class families (Acemoglu et al. 2025). As such, the new budget contains several provisions that provide disproportionate tax relief to the wealthiest households, at the expense of social programs designed to benefit working- and middle-class families.

Allowing the premium tax credits to expire also repeats an unfortunate pattern associated with pandemic-era expansionary policy aimed at easing economic conditions for American families. Through several provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act (namely the expansion of the Child Tax Credit), the scourges of poverty, child poverty, and child hunger were all drastically reduced in 2021 (Gould 2022). When those expansionary provisions were allowed to expire in 2022, these measures snapped back to their previously higher levels, erasing the progress that was made (Cid-Martinez and Zipperer 2023; Moore and Maye 2023). The ARPA and IRA policies provide clear evidence that policy can be used to effectively reduce poverty, hunger, and uninsurance rates in ways that close racial disparities; it is a matter of prioritization, not practicality.

Why does this matter for public health?

The loss of the premium subsidies will almost certainly lead to a reduction in insurance rates, concentrated amongst those with the least ability to pay. Even for those with more income, having to face increasing health care costs amid a broader affordability crisis will also likely lead those families to go uninsured at the margin. This reduction in insurance will lead to a reduction in families’ access to adequate and timely care. Writ large, reduced access to preventative, adequate, and timely care leads to a less healthy population overall. Moreover, when more individuals and families access health care on an emergency rather than preventative basis, it puts greater strain on the entire health care system, contributing to overcrowding in emergency departments and longer wait times, and reducing the quality of care possible for a broader population (Sartini 2022).

Whether health care is a necessary or luxury good within an economy is partially shaped by the extent to which health care is publicly subsidized (Khan and Mahumud 2015). This is because the income elasticity of demand for health care changes with income. With public support, many more individuals and families can purchase health services as they become necessary than would otherwise. In the absence of public support, and at lower income levels, many view health care much more as an optional purchase when weighed against other pressing costs like shelter and food. Structural changes to the social provision of health care, like allowing subsidies to expire, lead to direct changes in consumption of health services by families, and much more so by working- and middle-class families.

Why does this matter for racial health disparities?

Even among the working class, Black families are more likely to be uninsured compared with white families. Black families are more likely to live in states that did not accept the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, and they are less likely to work for employers that provide insurance coverage. Black families will therefore be impacted more heavily by policies that reduce access to insurance at the margin. This matters because, again, Black families are more likely than their white counterparts to forgo or delay access to adequate health care for financial reasons. Losing access to the enhanced tax credits will result in increased health costs, loss of coverage, diminished health, and excess deaths, concentrated amongst the most disadvantaged. This is in keeping with the Trump administration’s stance that racial equity is not a policy goal worth pursuing.

What will this mean economically for workers and their families?

Families facing economic precarity—those for whom even a relatively small negative economic shock could lead to a crisis—stand to lose the most from the expiration of the ACA premium tax credits. More families are in a precarious financial position than live below the poverty line, and the ongoing affordability crisis being exacerbated by erratic and harmful economic policy decisions increases that number. Black and brown families are more likely to be in the position in which losing the subsidies would be impactful because they are more likely to lack financial assets, even after earning a college degree and escaping income poverty.

The cities where Black workers and families reside will also face a negative shock due to the loss of the subsidies, resulting from lost worker productivity and a drop in revenue, as those families shift more of their spending toward maintaining health insurance and less on other locally purchased consumer goods. Reduced economic activity from Black workers and families will have a broader impact on economic growth and activity throughout these cities.

What should we do about it?

The enhanced ACA premium tax credits are a prime example of a policy used to address the income side of the affordability crisis. The credits work as an income transfer from the federal government to families, making purchasing health insurance more affordable; enhancing the credits allowed more families to access timely and adequate health care. Allowing those enhanced credits to expire imposes a major cost on American families and their local economies, especially those in states where Medicaid was not expanded through the ACA.

But temporary tax credits are weak policy tools for addressing structural affordability crises. When the credits inevitably expire and those federal dollars are taken away, families will face the same issues of affordability; only now their consumption will have adjusted around having the credits. The new “increase” in the cost of health insurance means families must decide whether to risk going without coverage or reduce spending elsewhere— a tough choice with no good outcomes for local economies. 

A better policy strategy for addressing an affordability or accessibility problem with health insurance is to make structural changes to the program ( i.e., permanent changes that expand affordability and accessibility). In this case, extending the premium subsidies to become standard policy would be the strategy that creates the least harm for workers and their families.

Extending the tax credit subsidies would still leave millions of Americans and their families without access to health insurance, and thus facing diminished access to timely and affordable health care. The ACA, even in the expanded form adopted by many states throughout the country, is an imperfect system for achieving the goals of health equity. Moving our health care system in the direction of single-payer health insurance in which access to affordable and high-quality health care is given as a right not contingent on wealth, income, or employment is the strategy most consistent with reducing economic and health disparities across race and improving our overall economic and public health.

Allowing the ACA premium tax credits to expire would make it harder for American families to access health care, worsen an ongoing affordability crisis, and have a knock-on negative impact on local economies. Black workers and their families would feel these shocks most acutely because even under normal circumstances, Black families are less likely to live in states with expanded access to Medicaid, less likely to work in jobs that provide access to health insurance, and more likely to forgo or delay health care due to financial challenges.

The Trump administration has continually shown its disdain for the pursuit of equity as a policy goal through dismantling institutions committed to reducing disparities, rescinding executive orders and federal commitments to set higher standards for equity, and failing to maintain policies that brought us closer to those goals. The pursuit of equity in this moment requires us to hold fast to the progress we have made thus far, both so that we limit the suffering of as many American workers and families as possible, and so that when we do have the opportunity to build toward further progress, those families will be in the best position to help us do so.

Methodology

This analysis uses publicly available data and fixed parameter assumptions alongside author calculations to produce annual, metro-level estimates for Black coverage losses and related economic impacts for 10 metropolitan areas. Demographic and labor market statistics are derived from 2023 IPUMS American Community Survey microdata and aggregated from the county to the metropolitan level using Census Core-Based Statistical Area definitions (Ruggles et al. 2025). Coverage data is derived from the 2024 CMS OEP county-level public use file for states using the federally facilitated Marketplace (CMS 2025). For states operating state-based exchanges in which county-level Marketplace data are unavailable, enrollment and subsidy totals are derived from Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) state-level estimates and allocated to metropolitan areas based on Marketplace-eligible population shares calculated from ACS microdata (KFF 2025). Projected coverage losses are derived from Commonwealth Fund estimates of coverage loss at the state level and allocated to metropolitan areas based on each metro’s share of state Marketplace enrollment (Ku et al. 2025). Parameter assumptions for economic activity and public health multipliers are drawn from literature listed in the references, including estimates of lost economic activity from reduced health care spending, productivity losses and employer costs associated with uninsurance, and preventable mortality linked to coverage loss (Chernew 2016; Ortaliza 2025; Sommers, Long, and Baicker 2014; EBRI 2000; O’Brien 2003).

References

Acemoglu, Daron, Peter Diamond, Oliver Hart, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz. 2025. “An Open Letter From Six Nobel Laureate Economists: The Upside-Down Priorities of the House Budget.” Economic Policy Institute, June 2, 2025. 

Buettgens, Matthew, Michael Simpson, Jason Levitis, Fernando Hernandez-Lepe, and Jessica Banthin. 2025. 4.8 Million People Will Lose Coverage in 2026 If Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire. Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund, September 2025.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 2025. 2024 “OEP County-Level Public Use File” [data set], 2024 Marketplace Open Enrollment Period Public Use Files. Last modified March 3, 2025. 

Chernew, Michael E. 2016. “The Economics of Medicaid Expansion” (blog post). Health Affairs Forefront, March 21, 2016.

Childers, Chandra. 2023. Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: The Failed Southern Economic Development Model. Economic Policy Institute, October 11, 2023. 

Cid-Martinez, Ismael, and Ben Zipperer. 2023. “The End of Key U.S. Public Assistance Measures Pushed Millions of People into Poverty in 2022.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 12, 2023.

Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). 2000. The Economic Costs of the Uninsured: Implications for Business and Government. EBRI Policy Forum held in Washington, D.C., May 3, 2000.

Gould, Elise. 2022. “Child Tax Credit Expansions Were Instrumental in Reducing Poverty Rates to Historic Lows in 2021.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 22, 2022.

Groundwork Collaborative. 2025. “Another Trump Price Hike for Working Class Americans as Health Insurance Premiums Set to Spike Up to 600% This Fall.” Innovative Research (blog post), October 1, 2025.

Hill, Latoya, Nambi Ndugga, Samantha Artiga, and Anthony Damico. 2025. Health Coverage by Race and Ethnicity, 2010–2023. KFF, February 2025.

KFF. 2025. “Marketplace Enrollment, 2014–2025” (web page). Accessed January 16, 2026.

Khan, Jahangir A.M., and Rashidul Alam Mahumud. 2015. “Is Healthcare a ‘Necessity’ or ‘Luxury’? An Empirical Evidence From Public and Private Sector Analyses of South-East Asian Countries?” Health Economics Review 5, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-014-0038-y.

Ku, Leighton, Taylor Gorak, Kendal Orgera, Kristine Namhee Kwon, Maddie Krips, and Joseph J. Cordes. 2025. Expiring ACA Premium Tax Credits Could Lead to Nearly 340,000 Jobs Lost Across the U.S. in 2026. The Commonwealth Fund (issue brief), October 16, 2025.

Lukens, Gideon, and Laura Harker. 2024. Closing Medicaid Coverage Gap Would Help Diverse Groups and Reduce Inequities. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 2024.

Monaghan, Maureen. 2014. “The Affordable Care Act and Implications for Young Adult Health.” Translational Behavioral Medicine 2014, no. 2 (June): 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0245-9.

Moore, Kyle K., and Adewale A. Maye. 2023. “Despite a Strong Labor Market, the Choice to Allow Pandemic-Era Public Assistance Programs to Expire Increased Poverty Across All Racial Groups in 2022.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 18, 2023.

O’Brien, Ellen. 2003. “Employers’ Benefits from Workers’ Health Insurance.” Milbank Quarterly 81, no. 1: 5–43. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00037. 

Ortaliza, Jared. 2025. “An Additional 8.2 Million People Are Expected to Be Uninsured from Changes in the ACA Marketplaces.” Quick Takes (KFF), June 10, 2025.

Ortaliza, Jared, Matt McGough, and Cynthia Cox. 2025. The Affordable Care Act 101. KFF, October 2025.

Ruggles, Steven, Sarah Flood, Matthew Sobek, Daniel Backman, Grace Cooper, Julia A. Rivera Drew, Stephanie Richards, Renae Rodgers, Jonathan Schroeder, and Kari C.W. Williams. 2025. IPUMS USA: Version 16.0 . Minneapolis, M.N.: IPUMS, 2025. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V16.0.

Sartini, Marina, Alessio Carbone, Alice Demartini, Luana Giribone, Martino Oliva, Anna Maria Spagnolo, Paolo Cremonesi, Francesco Canale, and Maria Luisa Cristina. “Overcrowding in Emergency Department: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions—A Narrative Review.” Healthcare (Basel) 10, no. 9 (Aug 25, 2022): 1625. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10091625. PMID: 36141237; PMCID: PMC9498666.

Sommers, Benjamin D., Sharon K. Long, and Katherine Baicker. 2014. “Changes in Mortality After Massachusetts Health Care Reform: A Quasi-Experimental Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine 106, no. 9: 585–593. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2275.

Sparks, Grace, Lunna Lopes, Alex Montero, Marley Presiado, and Liz Hamel. 2025. Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs. KFF, December 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure A

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

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

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

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

There are 410,000 year-round jobs in agriculture

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

Table 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act—passed in 1970 after decades of fierce advocacy by organized labor and its allies—mandates that workplaces be “free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” To implement this mandate, the Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop and enforce workplace health and safety standards. OSHA standards are designed to limit workers’ exposure to hazards; ensure access to adequate safety equipment; and require that employers monitor workplaces for hazards and report injuries and illnesses. OSHA also provides training and compliance assistance to workers and employers and gives workers the right to request workplace inspections. The OSH Act established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the sole agency responsible for conducting research to inform OSHA policymaking with evidence-based assessments of injury and fatality risks, and providing actionable guidance for employers to improve safety. Since OSHA was created, fatalities and work-related injuries have dropped by 65%, even while the U.S. workforce has doubled in size.

Separately, following a century of lawmaking related to mine safety, the 1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act created the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which is charged with enforcing mine safety rules with the goal of reducing deaths, injuries, and illnesses in U.S. mines.

The OSH Act establishes roles for both federal OSHA and states on occupational safety and health protection. The relationship between federal government and state OSH mandates is complicated. The OSH Act grants the federal government jurisdiction over worker health and safety law, but states have the option to establish their own state-level OSHA standards and enforcement systems (known as “state plans”) that are then monitored by federal OSHA. State OSHA plans must be approved by federal OSHA, be “at least as effective” as federal OSHA, and must cover state and local government employees at a minimum. Currently, federal OSHA can only cover private-sector workers. The cost of running a state plan is shared between the state and federal government. At present:

• 29 states are under federal OSHA jurisdiction (“federal OSHA” states). Federal OSHA covers all private businesses engaged in commerce and all federal agencies but does not cover state and local governments (see Figure A). Self-employed workers are excluded and employers with 10 or fewer employees are exempt from OSHA’s record-keeping requirements (though they are still required to comply with OSHA standards and to report serious injuries and fatalities).
• 21 states have OSHA-approved state plans that cover both private-sector and state and local government workers.{{1}}
• Six states have “hybrid” plans, where private-sector workers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction, but public-sector employees are covered by a state plan.{{2}}

Figure A

What are the threats to federal workplace health and safety protections?

Threats to federal workplace health and safety protections include:

• Diminishing capacity to enforce or develop workplace safety standards: OSHA has long been understaffed and underfunded. Federal and state OSHAs collectively employ fewer than 2,000 inspectors to cover 161 million workers; it would take the agency 185 years to inspect every U.S. workplace just once. Trump administration actions have already significantly exacerbated OSHA’s existing capacity and enforcement constraints, by:
  • Attempting to close OSHA and MSHA offices, as well as attempting to eliminate NIOSH;
  • Issuing guidance allowing OSHA staff to reduce certain employer OSHA violation penalties by up to 70%; and
  • Announcing self-audit programs that carve out inspection exemptions for employers. These programs reduce the agency’s enforcement powers and create a system that relies on self-policing and individual companies’ voluntary adherence to the law.
• Restricting the General Duty clause: Trump’s Department of Labor has proposed carving out exemptions to this foundational OSHA protection, which ensures that employers have a basic obligation to protect workers from known and preventable dangers not covered by other OSHA regulations. This rule change would exempt certain industries from this obligation and has dangerous implications for the future of OSHA.
• Blocking or delaying long-overdue standards on serious hazards like silica dust or heat exposure: The Trump administration has already paused enforcement of a new mine safety rule on silica exposure that would prevent black lung disease and death from silicosis among coal miners. It is widely anticipated that the administration will block or weaken a proposed new OSHA standard to protect workers from extreme heat exposure.

How can states maintain and strengthen workplace health and safety protections?

State authority to enact and enforce health and safety standards depends on whether a state is a “federal OSHA” or “state plan” state, as follows:

• Federal OSHA states are preempted from enacting standards in areas already addressed by federal OSHA but can still enact policies covering areas of occupational health and safety not addressed by federal law.
• States with state OSHA plans have authority to enact standards that exceed the federal floor—for example, by strengthening existing standards or adopting standards in additional areas, as well as strengthening enforcement programs and imposing civil monetary penalties that exceed federal amounts.

Step I: Update state laws and standards to lock in current federal protections

In state plan states, OSHA standards and enforcement must be at least as strong as the floor set by federal OSHA. However, many state plan states have not achieved this basic standard. Meanwhile, federal OSHA states run the risk of leaving workers unprotected if federal OSHA standards are eliminated or enforcement is further weakened.

Federal OSHA states should:

1. • Ensure OSHA coverage for all public employees: Federal OSHA excludes millions of workers from its protections because it does not cover state and local government employees. Six federal OSHA states have passed protections covering all public employees, but 23 federal OSHA states and the District of Columbia have not yet taken necessary steps to extend protections to state and local government employees. All federal OSHA states should extend coverage to public-sector workers, as is currently under consideration in Pennsylvania. (Because state OSHA plans often struggle with underfunding and capacity constraints that limit their effectiveness, advocates should remain aware that extending coverage to public employees under this model is an important short-term solution, while a best-case long-term scenario would be an expanded federal OSHA that covers all private- and public-sector workers).
   • Pass worker health and safety trigger laws: Federal OSHA states cannot strengthen or adopt standards in areas already regulated by federal OSHA. However, states can safeguard against the possibility of existing federal standards being eliminated by passing legislation to automatically incorporate into state code any eliminated federal standards to ensure workers are not left unprotected. For example, a recently enacted Illinois law directs state agencies to ensure state wage and hour, occupational health and safety, and mine safety standards remain at least as protective as existing federal standards in the event that certain federal protective standards are eliminated.

State plan states should:

• • Ensure full adoption of all current federal standards: Too many state plan states have track records of failing to adopt required new federal standards in their OSHA plans. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the state of Arizona failed to adopt an emergency temporary standard (ETS) for health care workers and failed to align with federal OSHA’s new increase in penalties. After federal OSHA threatened to revoke Arizona’s state plan privilege, the state met its obligations to adopt these standards and penalty increases. Some states, like Kentucky, have failed to update their penalty policy to align with federal minimum standards.

Step II: Close critical gaps in workplace health and safety protections

• All states should adopt standards in key areas federal OSHA fails to cover: Federal OSHA lacks standards in several areas where workers face serious and ongoing workplace hazards, but intense industry opposition has blocked or stalled federal OSHA rulemaking. Fortunately, all states have latitude to adopt their own standards in these areas and can do so by drawing on existing, evidence-based proposals already developed (but not enacted) by federal OSHA, relying on recommendations from NIOSH, or replicating strong standards already implemented in other states.
  • Heat exposure: Heat is a serious and deadly hazard for many workers. There is currently no federal heat standard; it is unlikely that the proposed protection moving through the rulemaking process will be finalized. In the absence of a federal standard, several states have implemented their own state heat standards, which vary in strength and coverage. Lawmakers seeking model policies can look to states like California, Maryland, and Oregon, where strong heat standards apply to both indoor and outdoor workplaces and there are clear temperature thresholds for when protections kick in.
  • Wildfire smoke: Wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, yet there is no federal OSHA standard requiring protection from wildfire smoke. States can follow the lead of California, Oregon, and Washington, which have all promulgated rules that require employers to follow protocols to protect many workers, not just responders. Outdoor and indoor workers need protection from wildfire smoke when airborne particulate matter reaches a certain concentration threshold.
  • Ergonomics: Ergonomic hazards like repetitive lifting, twisting, and forceful hand and wrist motions have long been a leading source of workplace injuries, especially in industries like warehouse work, meat processing, health care, and construction. A federal ergonomics standard was enacted in 2000 but then promptly repealed by Congress. A few states have passed rules to protect workers in certain industries from musculoskeletal disorders, such as hotel housekeepers in California and meatpacking workers in Minnesota. New York recently passed a warehouse worker protection act that includes specific protections against musculoskeletal disorders, among other workplace health and safety concerns.
  • Workplace violence: Workplace violence has worsened over the past five years and is now the third-leading cause of death on the job, yet federal efforts to implement a workplace violence standard have so far been unsuccessful. California, however, is in the process of developing a general standard for workplace violence protections after the state legislature passed SB 553 and mandated comprehensive protections. Cal/OSHA had already implemented a workplace violence prevention standard for employees in health care industries. Several other states proposed standards this year.
  • Infectious disease: In the absence of a federal OSHA standard on airborne or aerosolized infectious disease, U.S. workers—particularly health care workers, low-wage workers, and workers of color—continue to face high risk of workplace exposure during major infectious disease outbreaks. A 2021 OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard established to address COVID-19 in health care settings was withdrawn six months later and OSHA’s stated intent to develop a broader infectious disease rule for health care remains in limbo. During the pandemic, at least 14 states implemented temporary COVID-19 worker safety protections. Other states, such as New York, have adopted limited infectious disease standards. Unfortunately, no state has adopted a comprehensive, enforceable measure yet.
  • Right to refuse work under dangerous conditions—including during climate emergencies: While federal OSHA law has some retaliation protections for workers refusing to work under dangerous conditions, they are weak and largely unenforced. It is therefore urgent that states take steps to ensure that workers may refuse to work under dangerous conditions without being subject to retaliation—and that they continue to be paid so long as the dangerous workplace condition remains unremedied. The need for this protection is only increasing as the climate crisis causes more severe and more frequent emergencies. Some states—such as California and Oregon—and localities like Miami-Dade County, Florida, have enacted laws that prohibit employers from taking adverse action against non-essential workers who refuse to continue work when emergency conditions are present or imminent.
  • Mandate injury and illness prevention programs (IIPPs): Federal OSHA does not have a specific standard to require an IIPP but has issued formal recommendations that employers adopt comprehensive safety programs. Several states, including California, Minnesota, and Washington, have created regulations that require that employers implement an injury and illness prevention plan.
  • Strengthen anti-retaliation protections for workers that voice concerns about safety and health hazards: Though federal OSHA law contains some language on protecting workers from retaliation when exercising their rights under the law, the provisions are weak and the OSHA offices that enforce the provisions are critically understaffed. Providing workers with a private right of action so that they may go to court if they are retaliated against is critical for ensuring workers are protected. States with existing whistleblower laws should expand them to protect workers who notify fellow workers or the public about workplace hazards (not just workers who file complaints).
• State plan states should strengthen existing standards: State plan states should increase protections for workers by implementing stronger versions of existing weak or outdated federal standards. State plan agencies can look to states like California and Washington, whose OSH agencies regularly pass the nation’s most stringent standards, for guidance.

Step III: Use proven strategies to increase effectiveness of enforcement, encourage compliance, and expand community awareness

• State plan states should implement targeted, more effective enforcement and penalty strategies. They should:
  • Increase agency resources and staff: Where possible, states should dedicate more resources to their state OSH agency. Like federal OSHA, state plans are plagued with staffing shortages that severely limit their ability to carry out regular, sufficient inspections. As of 2024, state plan states had an average ratio of one OSHA inspector per 84,937 employees.
  • Increase penalties to meaningful levels: Penalties are effective for deterring violations only if they’re substantial enough to compel employers to take notice and remove hazards. While state plans are required to maintain statutory maximum penalties that are at least equivalent to those of federal OSHA, Kentucky is one of several states that has failed to raise its penalties after Congress required OSHA to raise its penalties in 2016 and index them to inflation. There are also often significant disparities between the already low average penalties assessed by federal OSHA and the average penalties assessed by state plans, even among those that have adopted new maximums. In fiscal year 2024, the average penalty for a serious violation under federal OSHA was $4,083, compared with an average penalty under state OSHA plans of only $2,580. These penalties are far too low to serve as effective deterrents; state plan states should raise penalty rates substantially across the board. In addition, states should resist adopting the new federal OSHA penalty reduction policy that the Trump administration announced in July.
  • Implement instance-by-instance citations: States can use instance-by-instance citations to cite and fine employers for each individual iteration of a willful and serious violation. This strategy can have a significant impact by compounding OSHA’s otherwise low penalties. Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries, for example, fined a manufacturing company over $2 million after it found 31 willful serious, seven willful general, 94 serious, and more than 40 general violations across three of the corporation’s locations. 
  • Cite all involved employers for violations: It is often the case that companies do not directly employ many of the workers who perform tasks for them—work is often outsourced via other entities such as subcontractors, temporary agencies, and workers misclassified as independent contractors. Multiple employers may also operate at the same site. Federal OSHA has maintained a multiemployer policy since the 1970s, but it is underutilized and not regularly enforced. When workers’ safety rights are violated in situations that involve multiple employers, state plans should cast as wide a net of responsibility as is legally feasible and hold all involved companies that possess control over working conditions financially responsible.
  • Require workplace hazards to be addressed while citations are being contested: Federal OSHA and most state plans do not require employers to abate workplace hazards identified during an OSHA inspection while that violation is being contested. State plan states should require employers to address recognized hazards whether they appeal the violation or not, as is done in Washington.
• Monitor and expose routine violators: Federal OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program designates agency resources toward inspecting and monitoring employers that have “demonstrated indifference” to their OSH Act obligations. Severe violators are subject to additional inspections and are publicly listed on the Severe Violator Enforcement Program Log. This program has been found to be effective at deterring violations by peer employers. States can implement a state-level “wall of shame” like New Jersey’s Workplace Accountability in Labor List (WALL), a publicly accessible list of employers with outstanding wage/benefit theft or tax liabilities, and can issue press releases publicizing serious and willful violations by employers.
• Provide or require workers’ rights education: States can mandate that both youth and adults receive education on workplace health and safety and their rights under OSHA. For high school students, “workplace readiness” curricula—like the one implemented in California and those proposed in other states—can include education on workplace rights including health and safety protections. States can implement use of NIOSH’s “Youth@Work—Talking Safety” curriculum in schools and develop state-level versions of programs like the federal Susan Harwood Training Grants Program, which provides funding to nonprofit organizations to provide workplace health and safety training—particularly to marginalized workers in high-hazard industries.

Where to go next

This document is designed to be a primer on OSHA, as well as to provide insight into the complex relationship between the federal OSHA and state plan states. It is a first step for those interested in improving worker health and safety conditions in their state. It does not provide enough details to guide drafting of laws or regulations for your state. If you are interested in advocating for specific policies mentioned in this brief, please contact us at earn@epi.org. We will be happy to connect you with relevant health and safety experts and organizations for further technical assistance.

Additional recommended resources:

• AFL-CIO’s Death on the Job report
• AFL-CIO’s resources for workers
• Health & Safety resources from National Employment Law Project
• National Council for Occupational Safety and Health
• Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Debbie Berkowitz and Rebecca Reindel for their expertise and guidance.

{{1.}} These states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Puerto Rico also operates a state plan.

{{2.}} These states are Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. The Virgin Islands also operate a hybrid plan.

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.

Summary:

• From 1916–1970, 6 million Black Americans fled the violence and economic oppression of the rural South. Among the legacies of this Great Migration is the concentration of Black Americans in urban areas.
• Today, 10 metro areas—New York, Atlanta, D.C., Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, and Detroit—have the largest Black populations in the country and are home to 38.6% of the Black labor force.
• This analysis finds evidence of relative economic prosperity and hardship across and within these 10 metro areas, demonstrating huge stakes associated with federal budget and job cuts, anti-equity backlash, and growing concerns of a self-inflicted recession.
• Since taking office, Trump has pushed an anti-equity agenda that rolls back the clock on hard-won federal policies establishing equal employment and core labor standards and protections for Black workers. The passage of those laws was pivotal in expanding rights and opportunities sought across the decades of the Great Migration and Civil Rights Movement.
• Mass firings of federal employees and budget cuts will have harmful consequences for Black Americans across class lines.
  • Given the large share of the state’s federal workers in metro Atlanta (51% of GA total), D.C. (60% of combined D.C., MD, VA & WV total) and New York (63% of combined NY & NJ total), Trump’s attack on the public sector threatens what has historically been a pathway to better, more equitable jobs for Black Americans—thanks to robust anti-discrimination policies and public-sector collective bargaining.
  • Although these cities anchor metro areas with some of the highest Black median household incomes in the nation, federal grant funds provide critical support to under-resourced inner-city communities. Many of those federal investments in low-income and working-class communities were cut in the Republican-led budget reconciliation bill.
• In addition to his attacks on equity and workers’ rights, Trump’s policy path leads straight to recession—jeopardizing Black workers’ labor market gains in recent years, including historically low unemployment and faster wage growth.
• Based on 2023 estimates from the American Community Survey, metro area Black unemployment was lower than the Black national average in Atlanta, D.C., Dallas, Miami, and Philadelphia.
• While overall real median household income declined 1.1% between 2019 and 2023, Black median household income grew by 2.8%.
• In 2023, Black median household income exceeded the national median of $53,927 in all but two (Chicago and Detroit) of the metros observed. It was highest in the D.C. ($89,912) and Atlanta ($70,969) metro areas.
• In the face of federal rollbacks of civil and worker’s rights and growing concerns about recession, state and local governments should act to maintain and strengthen basic protections, like minimum wage and unemployment insurance, while continuing local efforts to advance racial equity and justice. However, local leaders in red states, like Florida and Texas, face state-imposed obstacles to passing progressive economic and racial justice policies. 

The concentration of Black Americans in urban areas is one of the legacies of the Great Migration—the period between 1916 and 1970 when 6 million Black Americans fled the violence and economic oppression of the rural South in search of safety and better job opportunities in cities throughout the Northeast, Midwest, and West. But even in non-Southern U.S. cities, many continued to face poor working conditions as well as employment and pay discrimination, leaving them just marginally better off than in the places they fled. Rather, significant gains in economic status only became possible through sweeping changes to federal labor and civil rights laws born from years of protest and political pressure during the decades of the Great Migration and beyond. While landmark federal labor laws passed during the 1930s improved working conditions for most white workers, many Black workers were initially excluded from the right to organize unions under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, or minimum wage and overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The steady demand for equal protection under these and other laws led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting segregation at all places of public accommodation and discrimination by employers and labor unions based on race, color, religion, or national origin. These federal labor and civil rights laws set a national standard for fair working conditions and equal treatment that some state and local governments have enhanced to varying degrees based on local political and economic conditions. In many cities with large Black populations, policy decisions and local economic conditions yield both positive and negative results for Black Americans.

The diverse experiences of Black people across metro areas{{1}} exemplify the notion that Black America is not a monolith. The unique political and economic dynamics in each place produce relative economic prosperity and hardship that make up the collective economic experience of Black Americans. However, even areas once sought as places of refuge and economic opportunity are now contending with a president whose actions undermine federal laws establishing equal employment and other civil rights, as well as core labor standards and protections.

Since taking office, Trump has pushed a revisionist version of history that erases any acknowledgement of the racism, violence, and oppression that created persistent racial inequities and forever changed the demographic composition of U.S. cities. This includes issuing a barrage of executive orders that roll back the clock on hard-won federal policies that have helped Black Americans attain many of the opportunities sought through the Great Migration and Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Instead, Trump’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) rhetoric centers white men as the primary victims of discrimination and calls into question the “merit” or qualifications of almost anyone else. He has used those false narratives to justify eliminating the use of disparate impact liability and redirecting enforcement priorities at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs—severely weakening the two agencies responsible for making sure employers comply with anti-discrimination law. Trump’s anti-equity agenda—along with efforts to decimate the federal workforce, cut services and programs that working families and low-income communities rely on, and attacks on labor standards and workers’ union and collective bargaining rights—are just some of the many harmful actions that hurt workers and put the economy at risk (McNicholas et al. 2025).

As a benchmark for assessing what’s at stake under Trump’s harmful economic policies and anti-equity agenda, we explore economic conditions for Black Americans in 10 U.S. metro areas with the largest Black populations. This list includes nine of the country’s largest metros overall—anchored by the principal cities of New York, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, and Los Angeles—as well as Detroit. Today, these 10 metro areas, including four in Southern states, are home to 38.6% of the Black labor force and 26.9% of the total labor force. Each of these metro areas account for at least one-third of their respective state’s Black labor force. Additionally, Black Americans are the largest demographic group in the principal cities of Detroit (75.9%), Atlanta (46.4%), Washington, D.C. (40.9%), and Philadelphia (39.5%) and represent over one-fifth of the population in all but Los Angeles (8.5%) and Miami (14.1%).

We examine unemployment rates, median household income, the size of the federal workforce, and federal grant dollars awarded to these places in 2023. Our analysis compares economic outcomes for Black Americans across metro areas and relative to national and state averages and considers some of the factors contributing to those differences. This cross-metro analysis allows us to go beyond a simple categorization of economic conditions as good versus bad or equal versus unequal. Instead, it raises important questions about why conditions are better in some places and worse in others. Finally, we explore the potential for state and local policy to provide a buffer against damaging federal actions that increase the risk of recession, harm workers, and exacerbate racial inequities.

Metro area unemployment rates and income reveal relative economic prosperity and hardship among Black Americans

The chaotic and harmful actions of the second Trump administration have raised the risk of recession for the otherwise strong and resilient labor market Trump inherited. One of the greatest casualties of a completely self-inflicted recession would be the labor market gains experienced by Black workers in recent years, including historically low unemployment and faster wage growth (Cid-Martinez, Maye, and Marvin 2025).

According to official estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average annual Black unemployment rate in 2023 was a record low (5.5%), compared with an overall national unemployment rate of 3.6%. This analysis compares estimates of national, metro, principal city, and state unemployment rates for Black workers using data from the American Community Survey (ACS). ACS provides better coverage of metro area and principal city Black unemployment rates, but 2023 national estimates are higher than those reported by BLS due to differences in the survey reference periods.{{2}}

As shown in Figure A, in 2023, five of the 10 metro areas—Washington, D.C., Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, and Philadelphia—each outperformed the ACS-estimated national average of 7.2% for Black Americans. Across all 10 metro areas, Black unemployment ranged from a low of 5.6% in metro Atlanta to a high of 10.4% in the Chicago metro area.

Figure A

Figure B reveals that metro area Black median household income exceeded the national median of $53,927 in all but two of the metros observed. The exceptions were the Midwestern metro areas of Chicago and Detroit—the same places where Black unemployment was highest in 2023. Although incomes of Black residents in metro Chicago and Detroit were lower relative to the national median and other metros, their incomes were higher than the median Black household in the states of Illinois and Michigan. Median Black household incomes in those states were also the lowest among the states observed for this analysis.

Figure B

At the opposite end of the scale, Black median household income was highest in the D.C. ($89,912) and Atlanta ($70,969) metro areas. Notably, metro D.C.’s Black median household income was also significantly higher than the overall national median of $77,719. Black households in the New York ($65,758) and Dallas ($63,376) metro areas also had substantially higher median incomes than the typical Black household nationwide.

Relatively higher incomes and lower unemployment in metro D.C. and Atlanta are consistent with the fact that these places also had the largest shares of highly educated Black workers. The share of Black college graduates in the D.C. (40.8%) and Atlanta (36.2%) metro areas is well above the share of Black college graduates nationally (26.2%) and at least as high as the share of all college graduates nationwide. In contrast, the Detroit metro area had the lowest share of Black college graduates (20.8%). As we will discuss later, the high concentration of federal employment and related professional job opportunities in metro D.C. is a likely factor in attracting Black college graduates to the area.

The strength of the 2023 labor market and rise in employment among Black Americans also contributed to the growth in median Black household income. As shown in Figure C, while overall real median household income declined 1.1% between 2019 and 2023, Black median household income grew by 2.8%. The spike in inflation during this period generally muted real income growth; however, increased employment of Black workers managed to counteract the negative impact of inflation on income (Moore and Maye 2023). Black median income growth also outpaced total income growth in six of the 10 observed metro areas—Miami, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Dallas. In places where real incomes declined, the decline was smaller among Black Americans.

Figure C

Echoes of the Great Migration

Across all the observed metro areas, there is a clear distinction in the average economic status of Black Americans in the principal city compared with the broader metro area, which includes surrounding suburbs. We characterize these consistent place-based differences as echoes of the Great Migration. One of the factors contributing to these differences was “white flight”—the mass relocation of white people from urban centers to suburbs in response to the rising Black population in cities during the Great Migration. More than just a demographic shift, white flight initiated a draining of economic resources away from cities that continued as more affluent Black families moved to suburbs following the passage and enforcement of fair housing laws.

Across all 10 metro areas, Black unemployment was higher in principal cities compared with the broader metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and the state. Referring again to Figure A, in 2023, Black unemployment in the city of Atlanta (8.4%) was 2.8 percentage points higher than metro Atlanta where Black unemployment was lowest and closest to the overall national average. Similarly, the Black unemployment rate was more than 3 percentage points higher in the cities of Washington, D.C. (9.9%) and Miami (9.7%), relative to the respective metro areas. In Chicago (12.3%) and Detroit (11.7%), Black unemployment was nearly 2 percentage points above metro area rates that were already at least 2 percentage points above the Black national average. Recession-level Black unemployment rates in the Midwestern cities of Chicago and Detroit are also reflected at the state level for Illinois and Michigan. For Detroit, in particular, a second wave of white flight followed the post-1980s decline in manufacturing jobs and union density, once critical sources of Black economic mobility in the region (Scott et al. 2022). 

Similarly, Black median household income was substantially lower in principal cities than the metro area and the state. Figure B shows that across all 10 metro areas, Black median household income was at least $6,400 lower in the principal city than in the metro area. The largest gap was in the D.C. metro area, where there was a difference of nearly $30,000 between Black median household income in the principal city of Washington, D.C., and the broader metro area. In other metro areas with relatively high Black median incomes, like metro Atlanta and Dallas, the difference was $17,066 and $14,849, respectively. However, even in the Detroit metro area where Black incomes were lowest, there was a gap of more than $10,000 between households in the principal city and those in the broader metro area.

Federal grants are critical to filling resource gaps in urban areas

Federal grants are critical to filling the resource gaps in principal cities since those funds are often directed toward poorly resourced communities. Table 1 provides a summary of federal grant dollars flowing to each city in recent years based on data available at USAspending.gov.{{3}} The grant amounts include funds from block, formula, project, and cooperative agreement grant obligations, and encompass COVID-19-related obligations from the American Recovery Plan Act.

As shown in Table 1, D.C. and New York received the most in federal grant funds (an annual average of more than $6 billion each over fiscal years 2022–2024) followed by Atlanta. However, when adjusted for population size, D.C. and Atlanta had the highest per capita averages ($9,158 and $6,769 per person, respectively).

Although these cities anchor metro areas with some of the highest Black median household incomes in the nation, federal grant funds are directed toward the needs of less advantaged residents. For example, over the last three years, Atlanta’s largest federal grants were from the Department of Education to support students from low-income families in Title I schools. The largest federal grants to Washington, D.C., were from the Environmental Protection Agency, authorized through the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and to bring green projects to low-income and disadvantaged communities. Most of the federal grant dollars going to the city of New York were from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support public housing.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was a major source of federal grants awarded in nine of the 10 cities. While the agency is most often associated with Medicaid funding for states, HHS funds programs like Head Start, HIV emergency relief, cancer treatment, and children’s hospitals at the city level. Across all 10 cities, the Departments of HHS, HUD, and Transportation were commonly among the top three awarding agencies, representing critical investments in health and well-being, housing, and transportation infrastructure in urban areas.

Table 1

However, due to the upside-down priorities of the current Congress, many federal investments in low-income and working-class communities have been cut to give tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. In July 2025, Congress passed the Republican-led Budget Reconciliation Bill (or H.R. 1) which guts Medicaid and slashes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), while also eliminating clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act, potentially putting over half a million jobs at risk (Seeburger et al. 2025). The bill results in 16 million fewer people having health coverage through 2034 and places approximately 11 million individuals at risk of losing SNAP benefits. Medicaid cuts alone could depress local spending enough to force the loss of 850,000 jobs (Bivens 2025). Overall, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that annual income for households in the lowest decile would decline by about $1,600—highlighting the devastating impact this bill will have on vulnerable families and the added strain it would place on state and local budgets (CBO 2025).

The city of Washington, D.C., was placed in a uniquely precarious position when the House’s reconciliation bill reverted D.C. to its 2024 budget. That decision slashed the city’s 2025 budget by more than $1 billion, an impossible deficit to close without laying off many city employees and severely cutting public programs and services. At of the time of this report’s publication, the House had yet to vote on an unanimously passed Senate fix that would reverse the budget cuts, needlessly placing the city’s budget in limbo. In response to House’s inaction, the mayor of D.C. proposed a 2025 supplemental budget that cuts services and freezes hiring to cover the budget gap while avoiding layoffs. Combined with federal job cuts, these actions represent a major blow to the area’s economic base and fiscal autonomy that would be especially tragic for Black Americans across class lines in the D.C. metro area.

Federal jobs cuts threaten relative economic security for the Black middle class

For Black Americans, public-sector employment has historically been a pathway to better, more equitable job opportunities. Through executive actions and legislation introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government once led in adopting anti-discrimination and affirmative action practices that increased the number of Black workers in the federal government. In the decades that followed, federal jobs have provided stable employment, excellent benefits, and opportunities for career advancement that supported a robust Black middle class. Public-sector collective bargaining has also helped to maintain the quality of these jobs through labor contracts that foster transparency through clearly defined policies and pay structures. This plays a critical role in reducing discrimination and providing workers with critical protections and recourse against other forms of exploitation or mistreatment.

That history stands in sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the public sector, beginning with workers in DEI departments within federal agencies. Trump’s attacks on the federal workforce also include attempts to limit the approval of collective bargaining agreements with federal workers. The targets of such actions include skilled and often highly educated Black workers who typically experience less employment volatility, even during economic downturns. Nationally, Black federal workers average 12.3 years of service and 45.3% hold at least a bachelor’s degree (compared with 26.2% overall) (Maye and Marvin 2025).

While federal jobs losses will obviously have an impact in the D.C. metro area, over 90% of federal workers are employed outside the nation’s capital (McNicholas and Oakford 2025). The ripple effects from large-scale job cuts are expected to show up in higher unemployment and the disruption of critical public services and government functions throughout the nation. Table 2 shows the number of federal workers who live in each of the 10 metro areas, as well as the metro’s share of total federal jobs in the state. For metro areas that cross state lines, including metro D.C., Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, we calculate metro area jobs as a share of the combined state totals. Over 300,000 federal workers reside in the D.C. metro area, accounting for 60% of all federal workers in the District of Columbia and surrounding states of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. The second largest number of federal workers (over 100,000) are in the New York metro area, representing 63% of all federal workers in New York and New Jersey. Among the single state metro areas, Atlanta is home to over half (51%) of Georgia’s federal workforce and 47% of Michigan’s federal workers are in metro Detroit.

Table 2

While metro-level federal employment numbers by race are unavailable, EPI analysis of state-level data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reveals that 43.8% of Georgia’s federal workers are Black—the largest share in the country (Wilson 2025). The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia each have larger numbers of federal workers than Georgia, and Black workers are just over one-fourth of the federal workforce in each those states—28.8% in D.C., 27.9% in Maryland, and 26% in Virginia.

Between January and July of 2025, BLS reported a loss of 84,000 net federal jobs but the full impact and consequences of those job losses are yet to be revealed. Though thousands of fired federal workers were reinstated by court orders in February 2025, the Supreme Court later sided with the Trump administration when it lifted a lower court’s block on mass federal layoffs, clearing the way for the Trump administration to proceed with planned large-scale cuts to the federal workforce. However, DOGE’s lack of transparency and the Trump administration’s broader data erasure efforts make it difficult to keep track of whether job cuts fall disproportionately on certain groups of workers.{{4}}

Troubling changes at the EEOC stifle equity and would be harmful to economic growth

As a large independent federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is relatively small compared with many cabinet level agencies experiencing job cuts. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the EEOC operates 53 district and field offices across the country,{{5}} including locations in each of our 10 featured cities with large Black populations. For 60 years, the EEOC has been integral to the enforcement of U.S. anti-discrimination laws—efforts that helped reduce employment discrimination and boost average living standards by an estimated $493 to $1,233 per person since 1960 (Maye and Wilson 2025). However, troubling changes to the structure and priorities of the agency paralyze some of the commission’s key functions and weaken enforcement against racial and gender discrimination—the most common types of discrimination claims filed (Mark, Gurley, and Rein 2025).

Instead, the Trump administration has redirected the EEOC’s priorities to focus more on investigating so-called DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination and anti-American national origin bias and discrimination (DOJ 2025; EEOC 2025). Trump also issued an executive order designed to end the use of disparate impact liability, a legal standard that works to prevent otherwise “race-neutral” policies and practices from perpetuating racial inequities (EPI 2025b). This restructuring of priorities threatens to turn the mission of the EEOC on its head by framing equity efforts intended to remedy decades of documented employment discrimination as discriminatory.

Just as the presence of EEOC offices in these cities signaled the federal government’s nationwide vigilance over employment discrimination, efforts to undermine the agency signal that employment discrimination—particularly against racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious minorities—will go unchecked. The impact of those changes extends beyond the millions of Black Americans working in and around these 10 cities alone and erodes workplace equity writ large.

State and local policy levers

As the Trump administration pushes the federal government toward a more anti-worker and anti-equity stance, decisions made by state and local policymakers will determine what kinds of protections workers in their states and cities will retain. Table 3 presents a sample of state and local policy positions related to workers’ rights for the ten metro areas featured in this analysis. These positions represent the relative progressivity of those state and local governments which could indicate their propensity to provide some buffer against harmful federal actions that raise the risk of recession, weaken labor standards, and exacerbate racial inequities. These policies include unemployment insurance (UI), minimum wage, paid leave, state preemption of local minimum wage or paid leave policies, and right-to-work laws. As a measure of the likelihood that state and local leaders will fight to maintain or strengthen equity efforts, we also include the number of Black mayors elected in each city and the existence of state or local reparations initiatives.

A basic scan of state and local policies reveals that while there is some variation in the generosity of UI benefits across states, the need for expanded federal support will once again be essential for recovery from the next recession. The scan also shows that local leaders in red states face state-imposed obstacles to passing progressive economic and racial justice policies.  

Table 3

Unemployment insurance

Unemployment insurance benefits are among the most efficient sources of support to families and the economy during a recession. Since they are targeted at individuals whose income falls due to a job loss, UI benefits provide direct income support to eligible unemployed workers while also helping to stabilize aggregate demand, the largest driver of economic growth. Estimates suggest that each dollar in UI benefits can generate nearly $2 in local spending (Evermore 2024). Despite the efficiency of UI benefits, they are often the target of austerity politics fueled by exaggerated and frequently debunked claims that overly generous benefits suppress employment (Martinez Hickey and Cooper 2021). 

While adequate federal action and support for expanding UI during a recession are critical to a quick recovery, state policymakers have some flexibility in determining how their UI programs are structured and resisting the austerity impulse. As a joint state and federal program, each state can adjust its own eligibility requirements, length of time for available benefits, and maximum weekly benefits in coordination with federal guidelines. Among the states represented in Table 3, Florida and Michigan are the only two that currently cap the number of weeks benefits can be received at less than 26 weeks. However, the maximum weekly benefit for unemployed individuals varies from a high of $605 per week in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) to a low of $365 per week in Georgia (Atlanta).

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the potential for major federal reforms to boost UI as a macroeconomic stabilizer by enhancing the duration, generosity, and eligibility of UI benefits (Bivens and Banerjee 2021). The pandemic also exposed administrative and fiscal inadequacies in state UI systems. Federal funds were allocated by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to improve UI systems administration, prevent fraud, and increase equitable access (DOL n.d.). However, few states took steps to strengthen severely underfunded state UI systems long term by increasing their taxable wage base (Sawo and Sherer 2022). UI reform advocates recommend increasing the taxable wage base to half of the taxable maximum for Social Security (Bivens et al. 2021). The increase would result in employers paying state unemployment taxes on a larger percentage of higher wage earners’ pay, generating more revenue and sustaining more fairness, equity, and administrative efficiency over time. Among the states considered, only New York and Illinois have a taxable wage base above $10,000, but still far below the much higher recommended base of $88,500 needed to address underfunding.{{6}}

In red states, a city’s ability to enact pro-worker policies is often at the mercy of state preemption

Several states and localities across the country have established minimum wage ordinances that exceed the federal standard. Since the federal minimum wage has remained stuck at $7.25 for over 15 years, failing to keep up with rising costs and inflation, this is a critical policy lever for supporting workers and their families’ right to a livable wage (Payne-Patterson and Maye 2023). Rasing the minimum wage supports all workers, but especially Black workers who are overrepresented in low-wage occupations.

Currently, 19 states and Washington, D.C., have passed laws raising their own minimum wage to at least $15 an hour by 2027, including several cities listed in Table 3 with local minimum wages well above the federal minimum (Hickey 2024; EPI 2025a). Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago all have a minimum wage standard of at least $15 an hour and Detroit’s minimum wage increased to $12.48 in 2025.

Sadly, four cities with large Black populations—Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia—have not raised their minimum wage above the federal level. In June, the Pennsylvania state House passed a bill that would raise Philadelphia’s minimum wage to $15 an hour after years of failed attempts to increase the state’s minimum wage to that level (Huangpu 2025). The House proposal now awaits approval by the state Senate. For relatively progressive cities that also happen to be in red states, state preemption laws are a major barrier to passing a higher local minimum wage. In Atlanta, workers not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act are paid a minimum of $5.15 an hour—$2.10 below the already insufficient federal minimum wage (GDOL n.d.). While local governments are prohibited in establishing a higher city-wide minimum wage, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta have each passed increases for city, county, or contract workers (Cooper 2024; Barrera and Heilman 2025). Apart from preemption, right-to-work laws in these states also present barriers that limit workers’ collective bargaining rights, resulting in lower wages and benefits for all workers.

While raising the minimum wage can raise living standards for low-wage hourly workers, paid family leave enables workers to avoid the difficult tradeoff between income stability and caring for family. There is no federal law that guarantees paid family or medical leave to workers; up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave are available to eligible employees under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). However, as of 2025, 13 states and Washington, D.C., have passed their own paid family leave laws (Williamson 2024). Of the states listed in Table 3, only California, New York, and the District of Columbia currently have paid leave policies on the books. In D.C. and New York, eligible employees receive up to 12 weeks of paid leave (DCPFL n.d., NYSPFL n.d.). In California, eligible employees receive up to eight weeks of paid time off (EDD n.d.). All three policies allow workers to use this leave for caring for a loved one, bonding with a child, or military assistance. In New York, employees taking paid family leave receive 67% of their average weekly wage, while in California, workers can receive about 70–90% of wages earned five to 18 months before the claim start date. D.C. Paid Family Leave provides wage replacement of 90% of wages up to 1.5 times D.C.’s minimum wage and 50% of wages above 1.5 times D.C.’s minimum wage (DCPFL n.d.).

Will local steps toward racial reckoning withstand the rising tide of federal and state anti-equity backlash?

Every city and town in the United States has its own complicated racial history to reckon with. That history is infused in local policy and politics and shapes social and economic outcomes. As is true at the national level, decisions made by local elected leaders can either widen or narrow racial disparities. Leadership also reflects and sets the tone for how a city acknowledges, confronts, and seeks to resolve current and historic racial injustice. As measures of perceived racial progressivity, we consider the number of Black mayors elected in the principal city for each metro area and whether any local reparations initiatives have been introduced since 2020. While these are admittedly imperfect metrics, we interpret them as signals of the local political will to advance racial equity and defend current efforts. However, it is uncertain how much local efforts will be jeopardized by legal challenges triggered by aggressive federal and state anti-equity policies.

Table 3 shows that among the 10 cities observed, all except Miami have elected at least two Black mayors. The cities with the longest history of Black leadership are Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, having had seven and six Black mayors, respectively. Five Black Americans have served as mayor of Detroit. Since Black Americans are the largest demographic group in each of these cities, the larger number of Black mayors elected in these cities reflects city demographics and perhaps the degree of influence Black Americans wield in local elections. A more comprehensive analysis of city management and the policy priorities of individual mayors would be needed to assess their direct impact on Black economic outcomes or racial equity.

While little progress has been made to advance the issue of reparations at the federal level, since 2020, several state and local governments have taken initiative in addressing their own histories of racial and economic injustice against Black Americans. Reparations initiatives exist in all except the three cities in red states whose governors have aggressively pushed anti-DEI legislation: Miami in Florida, and Dallas and Houston in Texas. In most places where a reparations initiative exists, activity has been at the city or county level. However, both city- and state-level initiatives exist in California and New York. Current state and local reparations efforts range from the appointment of a task force to study the issue, to exploring plan options, approving legislation, and implementing a plan. While there are open questions about whether local plans are truly reparative or will have any measurable economic effect on closing the racial wealth gap, they are at least a signal of willingness to confront and seriously consider government accountability for eliminating racial inequities (Moore 2023).{{7}}

Conclusion

The strong and stable economy Trump inherited withstood months of his administration’s harmful and chaotic policy actions before clear signs of a softening labor market became evident in the July jobs report. Large downward revisions to May and June payroll employment estimates signaled a weaker labor market than originally reported, bringing average three-month job growth down to just 35,000 net new jobs compared with 127,000 over the preceding three months. Rather than taking this sobering news as a sign that he should reconsider the current policy path, Trump misrepresented the news as a politically motivated personal attack and fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. Such careless actions unjustifiably erode confidence in one of the world’s most respected statistical agencies and endangers sound economic decision-making.

If the Trump administration and Congress continue along the current path, there is a very real risk of a recession in the coming months—and a lot at stake for Black Americans who typically suffer higher rates of unemployment and take longer to recover lost jobs and income from a downturn. In recent years there have been economic gains that should be protected and expanded. Five metro areas in this analysis had Black unemployment rates below the national average in 2023 and the median Black household income was above the national median in eight metros. At the same time, there is evidence of persistent inequities and economic hardship that demand a commitment to long-term solutions and investment in underserved communities. Two metro areas were below national measures of Black unemployment and income, but across all 10 metro areas, principal city residents had higher unemployment and lower incomes compared with the broader metro area which includes surrounding suburbs. Trump’s anti-equity, anti-worker agenda undermines both of those objectives by decimating the federal workforce and attacking public sector unions; cutting the federal budget for Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs that benefit low-income families; weaponizing civil rights enforcement to discourage diversity, equity and inclusion; and weakening core labor standards and protections.

State and local governments have some policy levers at their disposal for improving worker protections, but the effect those policies can have on the economic well-being of Black Americans varies by place, and in some cases is conditional on federal or state actions. For example, while cities and states have some capacity to increase their minimum wage or pass paid leave policies, preemption is a major barrier for local leaders seeking to pursue more progressive policies in red states. The law allows states some flexibility to adjust the duration and amount of unemployment insurance benefits, one of the most efficient sources of income support during a recession. Yet severe underfunding of state systems due to a far too low state taxable wage base starves their capacity to make substantial improvements in the fairness, equity, or generosity of benefits without federal funding. Moreover, in a recession, there is little any state can do to expand benefits and speed recovery without increased federal support—a step we can’t assume to be a priority of the current Congress or president. Finally, while many of cities we observe could be considered more racially progressive than the country as a whole, federally led anti-DEI backlash raises the possibility of legal challenges against local policies in support of equity and racial justice.

Black America is not a monolith. That statement is an assertion of the right to self-determination and individual expression that racism denies Black Americans. It is also a reflection of the varied experiences shaped by differences in local policy, economic conditions, political influence, and culture. Still, history shows that the pursuit of collective freedom, justice, and equity for Black Americans has always required decisive national actions that raise the standards for fair and equal treatment of all people in this country. The Trump administration’s denial of that history and lowering of those standards is not just several steps backwards for Black Americans, but moves all of the United States in the wrong direction.

Notes

{{1.}} A metro area is a region that includes a principal city and surrounding cities and towns with economic and social ties to the urban core.

{{2.}} The labor market statistics produced by BLS are based on data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS). CPS interviews are conducted in a single designated week each month and annual averages align with the calendar year, whereas respondents answer the ACS at times that vary throughout the month and year and annual figures are averaged over the prior 12 months.

{{3.}} USAspending.gov is the official open data source of federal spending information, including information about federal awards such as contracts, grants, and loans. Since annual grant totals can change as data are updated on a rolling basis, we use a three-year average to minimize the sometimes substantial effect updates can have on a single year’s grant total. A downloaded transaction summary as it existed at the time of our analysis is available upon request.

{{4.}} The OPM data used to report the share of Black federal workers are no longer publicly available.

{{5.}} Workers can call or visit EEOC field offices to ask questions about potential employment discrimination or to directly file an individual complaint. Field offices may also recommend charges for EEOC Commissioners to pursue against specific employers.

{{6.}} The $88,500 corresponds to half of the 2025 taxable wage limit for Social Security, which was $176,100, up from $168,600 in 2024.

{{7.}} In May 2025, FirstRepair and Decolonizing Wealth Project launched a mapping tool that documents state and local reparations initiatives across the United States. See: FirstRepair and Decolonizing Wealth Project, “Mapping the U.S. Reparations Movement” (web page), https://www.reparationsresources.com/.

References

Barrera, Daniela, and Greg Heilman. 2025. “New Minimum Wage in Texas for 2025: These Cities Will See an Increase.” Diario AS, January 3, 2025.

Bivens, Josh. 2025. “House Budget Bill Would Kick 15 Million People Off Health Insurance and Damage Local Economies.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), June 3, 2025.

Bivens, Josh, and Asha Banerjee. 2021. How to Boost Unemployment Insurance as a Macroeconomic Stabilizer: Lessons from the 2020 Pandemic Programs. Economic Policy Institute, October 2021.

Bivens, Josh, Melissa Boteach, Rachel Deutsch, Francisco Diez, Rebecca Dixon, Brian Galle, Alix Gould-Werth, Nicole Marquez, Lily Roberts, Heidi Shierholz, William Spriggs, and Andrew Stettner. 2021. “Section 2. Financing.” In 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. June 2021.

Cid-Martinez, Ismael, Adewale A. Maye, and Stevie Marvin. 2025. “Workers of Color Made Historic Gains Over the Last Five Years, but Trump’s Anti-Worker and Anti-Equity Agenda Threatens To Reverse This Progress.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 27, 2025.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2025. Letter to U.S. House of Representatives Members Brendan F. Boyle and Hakeem Jeffries. June 12, 2025.

Cooper, Tori. 2024. “Atlanta Mayor Signs Legislation to Increase City Employee Pay.” Atlanta News First, August 20, 2024.

DC Paid Family Leave (DCPFL) (website). n.d. Accessed June 17, 2025.

Department of Labor (DOL). n.d. “American Rescue Plan Act UI Modernization Grants Map” (web page). Accessed June 13, 2025.

Department of Justice (DOJ). 2025. “EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination” (press release). March 19, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025a. “Minimum Wage Tracker” (web page). Last modified March 1, 2025.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2025b. President Trump Moves To End Disparate Impact Liability That Protects People from Discrimination. April 2025.

Employment Development Department (EDD). n.d. “Paid Family Leave Benefits and Payments FAQs” (web page). Accessed June 13, 2025. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 2025. “EEOC Acting Chair Vows to Protect American Workers from Anti-American Bias” (press release). February 19, 2025.

Evermore, Michele. 2024. “Unemployment Benefits for Striking Workers Would Have Low Costs and High Rewards.” Commentary (The Century Foundation), February 28, 2024.

FirstRepair and Decolonizing Wealth Project. 2025. “Mapping the U.S. Reparations Movement” (web page). Accessed June 13, 2025.

Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL). n.d. “Minimum Wage” (web page). Accessed June 13, 2025.

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez. 2024. “Nearly Half of U.S Workers Will Live in States With at Least a $15 Minimum Wage by 2027.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), December 9, 2024.

Hickey, Sebastian Martinez, and David Cooper. 2021. “Cutting Unemployment Insurance Benefits Did Not Boost Job Growth.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 24, 2021.

Huangpu, Kate. 2025. “Minimum Wage Would Be $15 in Big Counties, $12 in Smaller Ones Under Novel Bill Passed by Pa. House.” Spotlight PA, June 11, 2025.

Mark, Julian, Lauren Kaori Gurley, and Lisa Rein. 2025. “Trump Moves To Fire Members of EEOC and NLRB, Breaking With Precedent.” Washington Post, January 28, 2025. 

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.

Maye, Adewale A., and Valerie Wilson. 2025. “Trump Is Making it Easier for Employers to Discriminate. This Stifles Equity and Hurts Economic Growth.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 27, 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, and Patrick Oakford. 2025. “A Snapshot of the Federal Workforce That Is Now Under Attack from the Trump Administration.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 21, 2025.

McNicholas, Celine, Samantha Sanders, Josh Bivens, Margaret Poydock, and Daniel Costa. 2025. 100 Ways Trump Has Hurt Workers in His First 100 Days. Economic Policy Institute, April 2025.

Moore, Kyle K. 2023. “Five Principles for Making State and Local Reparations Plans Reparative.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 15, 2023.

Moore, Kyle K., and Adewale A. Maye. 2023. “Despite a Strong Labor Market, the Choice to Allow Pandemic-Era Public Assistance Programs to Expire Increased Poverty Across All Racial Groups in 2022.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), September 18, 2023.

New York State Paid Family Leave (NYSPFL). n.d. “New York Paid Family Leave Updates for 2025” (web page). Accessed June 13, 2025.

Payne-Patterson, Jasmine, and Adewale A. Maye. 2023. “A History of the Federal Minimum Wage.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), August 31, 2023.

Sawo, Marokey, and Jennifer Sherer. 2022. “Strong and Equitable Unemployment Insurance Systems Require Broadening the UI Tax Base.” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 6, 2022.

Scott, Robert E., Valerie Wilson, Jori Kandra, and Daniel Perez. 2022. Botched Policy Responses to Globalization Have Decimated Manufacturing Employment with Often Overlooked Costs for Black, Brown, and Other Workers of Color. Economic Policy Institute, January 2022.

Seeberger, Colin, Andrea Ducas, Lily Roberts, Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Kennedy Andara, and Kyle Ross. 2025. “The Devastating Harms of House Republicans’ Big, ‘Beautiful’ Bill by State and Congressional District.” Center for American Progress, May 2025.

Williamson, Molly Weston. 2024. The State of Paid Family and Medical Leave in the U.S. in 2024 (fact sheet). Center for American Progress, January 2024.

Wilson, Valerie. 2025. Black Federal Workers by State (fact sheet). Economic Policy Institute, April 2025.

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. 

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets guidelines for the hours and nonhazardous jobs for which employers can hire minors under 16. The FLSA also empowers the Secretary of Labor to prohibit all minor employment in occupations that are particularly dangerous through “hazardous occupations orders.” It covers employers that conduct at least $500,000 in annual sales or any employees engaged in interstate commerce (this coverage is interpreted broadly with respect to child labor—if a firm engages in any form of interstate commerce, its minor workers are covered). Federal law sets an important but limited and increasingly outdated floor for child labor standards. For example, federal child labor standards in agriculture are much weaker than in nonagricultural employment, hazardous occupations orders have not been updated in decades, and there are no work hours protections for minors over the age of 15 (see Table 1).

Table 1

What are the threats to federal child labor standards?

Threats to federal child labor standards include federal proposals to weaken child labor protections and ongoing state-level efforts to erode the FLSA by proposing or enacting state child labor legislation that conflicts with federal law:

• Project 2025, the anti-worker policy roadmap being implemented by the Trump administration, proposes:
  1.  Eliminating federal hazardous occupations orders, which protect minors from employment in particularly dangerous jobs, like mining and roofing; and
  2. Allowing states to obtain waivers from the FLSA—including provisions that prevent harmful forms of child labor.

• In recent years, a coordinated, industry-backed campaign to erode child labor standards has generated proposals in dozens of states to weaken or eliminate state standards exceeding the minimal federal “floor” for child labor protections. Some state lawmakers have gone even further, proposing or enacting bills that directly conflict with federal minimum standards, while stating intent to build pressure for the eventual relaxation or elimination of FLSA standards for the whole country. Common targets for these attacks on state child labor standards include:
  • Eliminating youth work permits
  • Eliminating hours of work guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds
  • Eliminating meal or rest break requirements for minors
  • Expanding employers’ ability to hire minors for previously prohibited hazardous jobs
  • Lowering the age at which minors can serve alcohol and/or work in establishments serving alcohol
  • Establishing or expanding laws that allow employers to pay students or other youth a subminimum wage
  • Creating new exemptions from state child labor protections, for example for homeschooled youth or youth in certain occupations
  • Creating new systems—such as unregulated “internship” or “work-based learning” programs—that allow employers to skirt child labor laws or hire minors for otherwise prohibited hazardous work

By repeatedly proposing—and in some cases implementing—standards that conflict with federal law, these states are chipping away at the already fragile federal floor for workplace protections.

How can states maintain and strengthen child labor protections?

States have legal authority to establish their own child labor standards; the FLSA sets a floor above which states can adopt and enforce their own stronger standards.

States have historically played a prominent role in setting child labor standards—some states have protections in place that predate the FLSA, and many have long legislated above federal law. Other states maintain standards that generally mirror the FLSA, with few additional protections, and some states have standards that are significantly weaker than the FLSA. In many cases, a state’s standards are stronger than the FLSA in some areas and weaker in others. When a state standard is weaker than the FLSA, federal law applies. However, since only federal agencies can enforce federal laws, state laws that fall short of federal law increase the risk of federal violations while shifting the enforcement burden to already-overburdened federal agencies. Amid Trump administration attacks, federal agencies are now facing even more pronounced staffing shortages that will further limit their enforcement capacity.

In response to increasing child labor violations, many states are already taking action to strengthen state child labor standards and enforcement. Given the very real risk that aspects of FLSA child labor protections could be eliminated (or will go unenforced), all states should at a minimum lock in existing FLSA standards and ensure state capacity to enforce them. Beyond this, states have critical opportunities and responsibilities to modernize child labor standards beyond the minimal, outdated FLSA floor to ensure that minors who must work or choose to work can access safe work experiences that don’t harm their health or education. Fortunately, state lawmakers have an array of options to consider and tested legislative models to use as a guide.

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

State standards should be at least as strong as those in the FLSA. Ensuring that state standards mirror FLSA minimums protects both employers and children from the risks and confusion that arise when state standards contradict federal law. For example, after a Utah employer was fined for violating federal child labor law for incorrectly following state child labor guidelines that were weaker than FLSA standards, Utah enacted a bill to align state guidelines on hours of work for minors under 16 with FLSA standards.

Weaker standards often appear in areas of state code covering work hours or prohibited hazardous occupations. For example:

• Idaho allows employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds up to nine hours a day or 54 hours per week. Federal law allows employers to schedule 14–15-year-olds up to three hours a day or 18 hours per week in a school week and up to eight hours per day and 40 hours per week in a nonschool week.
• Iowa allows employers to hire 14-year-olds in industrial laundries and 15-year-olds in light assembly work, among other weaker standards. Federal law does not permit 14–15-year-olds to work in these settings.
• West Virginia allows employers to hire 16–17-year-olds enrolled in a “youth apprenticeship program” for all 17 hazardous occupations prohibited for minors under federal law. Federal law allows 16–17-year-olds to perform certain types of intermittent work in only seven of these occupations when enrolled in a bona fide registered apprenticeship program meeting certain stringent standards.

State policymakers should review their child labor statutes alongside federal child labor laws to identify areas of weakness. At a minimum, states should ensure that their guidelines for hours of work and hazardous occupations orders are at least as protective as the FLSA.

Step II: Close coverage gaps and address weaknesses in FLSA minimum protections

States can address many longstanding limitations and gaps in federal child labor protections. Examples of priority actions for state lawmakers to consider include:

1. Maintain effective youth work permit systems: Youth work permits have been shown to reduce child labor violations and aid in enforcement. The FLSA suggests—but does not require—that employers maintain certificates confirming the age of minors they employ. It also does not require minors to receive a permit as a condition of employment. Instead, youth work permit policies have historically been left to states. Most states already have some sort of permit system in place. Youth work permits are often simple, one-page forms that engage employers, parents, youth, and sometimes educators, in ensuring a child’s employment is legal, safe, and age-appropriate. Permits remind employers of existing child labor laws, inform parents of their child’s rights and affirm their consent, and aid state agencies in investigations of potential violations. States without work permit systems should implement them and states with existing work permit systems should assess and modernize their systems, as recently done in Illinois and New York and proposed in California.
2. Implement or expand work hour guidelines for 16- and 17-year-olds: The FLSA sets standards to protect children from excessive hours of work, especially during the school year. However, the FLSA was passed at a time when fewer than half of students completed high school, and its hours of work guidelines have never been updated to cover older minors (16- and 17-year-olds). In the absence of state standards, older teens can be scheduled to work unlimited hours per day or per week, including during school weeks. Some states have already adopted standards to address this gap, but fewer than half of states have hours guidelines in place for older teens. States should set maximum daily and weekly work hours for 16–17-year-olds and prohibit overnight work during the school week. Minimum standards should include limiting employers to scheduling 16–17-year-olds for no more than 32 hours in a school week, as nine states already do,{{1}} and prohibiting employers from scheduling 16–17-year-olds to work after 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. (or similar), as 20 states and D.C. already do.{{2}}
3. Update prohibitions on hazardous child labor: The FLSA prohibits minors under 18 from working in a list of 17 nonagricultural occupations and 11 agricultural occupations that have been found to be particularly hazardous for minors. Many of these hazardous occupations orders have never been updated. And new orders have not been created to account for new forms of hazards in our modern economy, particularly in agriculture. Moreover, the FLSA opens the door to dangerous exemptions from some hazardous orders,{{3}} with language that allows student apprentices and learners enrolled in approved training programs to do certain types of hazardous work under close supervision. State lawmakers can update prohibitions on hazardous child labor by expanding existing hazardous orders, creating new orders to cover hazardous occupations not covered under federal law, and ending student learner and apprentice exemptions. Lawmakers can use the 2002 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommendations to the U.S. Department of Labor as a guide for revising state hazardous orders. For example, Illinois recently updated and clarified state law to prohibit employment of minors in hazardous workplaces not covered under federal law, such as gun ranges and establishments primarily involved in the sale of tobacco or alcohol.
4. Extend equal protections to children working in agricultural occupations: Agriculture is the most dangerous sector of employment for minors, yet federal child labor standards remain much weaker in agriculture than in nonagricultural industries. State lawmakers can address this longstanding gap in federal law by aligning agricultural child labor standards for work hours and hazardous work with standards for nonfarm work. For example, in 2025, New Jersey lawmakers introduced a bill to raise the minimum age for agricultural employment to 14 and align work hours and hazardous work protections in agriculture with nonagricultural standards, among other updates to protections for farmworkers of all ages.
5. Increase civil penalties to deter violations and update them based on inflation: Under most existing state penalty structures, civil monetary penalties for child labor violations are very limited and, in some cases, nonexistent. Some states levy no civil penalties at all, and many states have not reviewed or updated penalty amounts in decades. In Indiana, for example, penalties range from a warning letter for an initial violation to a maximum of only $400 for a fourth violation within two years. Low or nonexistent penalties that can easily be absorbed as a “cost of doing business” do not deter employer violations and leave state enforcement agencies with few tools for ensuring compliance by bad actors. To ensure penalties serve as effective deterrents and enforcement tools, state lawmakers should set meaningful minimum penalties for first offenses and very high maximum penalties for serious or repeat offenses, as Illinois did in 2024. States can use federal civil penalties and annual adjustments as a benchmark; for example, current federal maximum civil penalties for a child labor violation range from $16,035 to $145,752, and rates are adjusted for inflation each year.
6. Strengthen state enforcement capacity and authority: Ensuring adequate state enforcement of child labor laws will become particularly important as federal enforcement capacity is diminished.
   • States should ensure funding for dedicated child labor enforcement staff so as not to take resources away from other wage and hour investigations. For example, a Virginia lawmaker recently requested an increased budget appropriation for child labor enforcement.
   • States should grant labor agencies sufficient authority to fulfill enforcement goals. For example, Nebraska recently enacted a bill that gives its labor agency power to subpoena records from employers suspected of violating the law.
7. Eliminate youth subminimum wages: The FLSA allows workers under age 20 to be paid as little as $4.25 per hour for their first 90 days of employment and allows employers to pay a lower minimum wage to full-time students in certain occupations, student learners, and apprentices. In recent years, some states have taken action to close these gaps so that all workers—regardless of their age—have a right to the minimum wage. All states should follow suit.

Step III: Modernize child labor standards to protect children’s health and wellbeing, safeguard their right to education, and improve their career prospects

The most effective child labor laws implement evidence-based guardrails to prevent excessive and hazardous work—as discussed above—alongside innovative policies to empower youth workers, deter violations, and provide meaningful redress and support to victims if violations occur. State lawmakers need not be bound by traditional areas of policy covered by the FLSA and can also:

1. Require workers’ rights education: If young workers do not know their rights, they will be less likely to report unsafe or illegal working conditions. States can invest in labor education to address this information gap. For example, California mandated that high schools annually teach students about workplace rights and the labor movement following a curriculum developed by the UC Berkeley Labor Center.
2. Mandate employer training on child labor laws and commitment to following the law: For example, Washington requires businesses who hire minors to obtain a special endorsement on their business license affirming compliance with child labor laws.
3. Encourage reporting by protecting whistleblowers and victims: Most labor investigations depend on worker reporting. Because young workers lack experience and knowledge about workplace rights and may fear employer retaliation, loss of wages, or immigration enforcement, many workplace abuses go unreported and uninvestigated. To address these enforcement challenges, state lawmakers should:
   1. Provide multiple avenues for child labor victims to be made whole after they report violations and risk losing their job. In most states, civil penalties for child labor violations are deposited into the state’s General Fund, and minors receive no compensation in the form of damages owed by the employer. Moreover, when a child is injured or killed on the job while employed illegally, they (or their family members in the event of the child’s death) are generally limited to the workers’ compensation system as their sole source of financial compensation. However, several states have enacted or proposed bills to make aggrieved minors eligible for additional compensation in the form of damages; for example, Colorado recently made it possible for minors who are injured while employed under illegal conditions to pursue private legal action and receive monetary damages.
   2. Enact whistleblower and anti-retaliation protections to protect workers who report labor abuses, as recently done in Minnesota.
   3. Remove provisions of state law that may discourage reporting of violations, such as those holding parents criminally responsible for allowing a child to be employed under illegal conditions, as Colorado recently did.
   4. Provide wraparound services to victims of illegal child labor to address root causes of excessive or hazardous work. For example, unaccompanied migrant youth should be provided with legal services, assistance in securing safe and age-appropriate work, and connections to community-based organizations or local government agencies that can provide additional supportive services.
4. Use innovative enforcement strategies to meaningfully hold employers accountable: Civil monetary penalties are a necessary but insufficient deterrent. State lawmakers should take a holistic approach to changing employer behavior and significantly increase the financial and reputational costs associated with breaking the law. They should:
   1. Use “hot goods” provisions and “stop work” orders to immediately disrupt the normal business of employers who are actively violating the law. “Hot goods” provisions allow courts to stop the flow of goods produced using illegal child labor and are currently in place federally. “Stop work” orders allow labor agencies to require the cessation of business until child labor violations are addressed, increasing the cost of violating the law. New Jersey permits such orders to be used when minimum wage violations are occurring.
   2. Bar violators from receiving public funding as proposed in Alabama, and implement other penalties, like revoking an employer’s permission to hire minors when they violate the law, as enacted in Washington.
   3. Create lead corporation accountability, so corporations are held jointly responsible for violations committed by their subcontractors or staffing agencies as proposed in a federal bill.
   4. Make employer violations data more accessible to the public—as recently mandated in Colorado—or publicly shame companies that violate the law by posting about violations on the state labor agency’s website—similar to New Jersey and New York.
   5. You can read more about these and other policies to address and deter violations here: Policies for states and localities to fight oppressive child labor.

Additional recommended resources 

• Child labor state legislation tracker (Economic Policy Institute) 

• Campaign to End US Child Labor 

• Child Labor Coalition at the National Consumers League 

• Federal child labor regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act  

• State child labor laws (U.S. Department of Labor; note that this page may not reflect all recent state legislative changes) 

• How states can stop the corporate campaign to roll back child labor protections (State Innovation Exchange and Economic Policy Institute) 

Editor’s note: This piece was revised on October 24, 2025, to add an “Additional recommended resources” section. 

{{1.}} Connecticut (32 hours), Florida (30), Kentucky (30), Maine (24), Michigan (24), New Hampshire (30), New York (28), Pennsylvania (28), Washington (20). See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor.

{{2.}} Alabama (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Arkansas (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), California (10 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Connecticut (10 or 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Florida (11 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.), Indiana (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Kentucky (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Louisiana (11 p.m. or 12 a.m. to 5 a.m.), Maine (10:15 a.m. to 7 a.m.), Massachusetts (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Michigan (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Minnesota (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), New Jersey (11 p.m. to 6 a.m.), New York (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), North Carolina (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.), Ohio (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.), Pennsylvania (12 a.m. to 6 a.m.), Rhode Island (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Tennessee (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Washington (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), and D.C. (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/child-labor.

{{3.}} Hazardous occupation (HO) 5. Power-driven woodworking machines; HO 8. Power-driven metal-forming, punching and shearing machines; HO 10. Power-driven meat-processing machines, slaughtering and meat packing plants; HO 12. Balers, compactors, and power-driven paper-products machines; HO 14. Power-driven circular saws, band saws, guillotine shears, chain saws, reciprocating saws, wood chippers, and abrasive cutting discs; HO 16. Roofing operations and work performed on or about a roof; HO 17. Trenching and excavation operations.