

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live."
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrated on Wednesday night after Brazil's legislature overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to end the country's six-day work week.
Under the amendment, which Lula has made a central plank of his reelection campaign, the work week will be shortened to 40 hours without a salary cut.
The amendment is projected to give an extra day off to millions of workers who previously had to work for six days under the old 44-hour work week.
In a Wednesday social media post, Lula celebrated the amendment's passage as "an historic achievement for millions of workers."
The Brazilian president said the shorter work week will mean "more time to live, rest, be with family, be with children as they grow, take care of yourself, and enjoy life."
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live," Lula added.
Polls show that Lula is currently locked in a tight race against rival Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is still serving a criminal sentence for efforts to instigate a coup after his loss in the 2022 election.
According to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, the shortened work week could give Lula a boost among key demographics ahead of the October 25 presidential runoff.
Specifically, The Guardian noted that "the change is expected to affect mainly workers in retail, restaurants, and hotels," which were "one of the groups which Lula lost the most support from since the 2022 election, when he defeated Jair Bolsonaro."
Victor Escobar, a researcher at the Laboratory of Parties, Elections, and Comparative Politics, told The Guardian that the amendment's passage "could indeed benefit Lula’s reelection campaign."
Polls show that ending the six-day work week is overwhelmingly popular with Brazilian voters and Bolsonaro recently came out in its favor after months of signaling opposition.
"These results are about taking on corporate America and reversing the worst out-of-control wealth inequality in America’s history."
Shawn Fain, who has emerged as one of the most prominent labor leaders in the United States, handily won reelection as president of the United Auto Workers, according to an unofficial tally released Friday.
“The membership has spoken,” Fain, who led the UAW through historic strikes against the Big Three Detroit automakers in 2023, said in a statement. "These results are about taking on corporate America and reversing the worst out-of-control wealth inequality in America’s history. We are fighting for the entire working class, whether that’s at the bargaining table, organizing new members, or in the political arena.”
Fain secured over 68% of the vote in his bid for another four-year term, according to the tally released by United UAW, whose slate of candidates includes Fain. All 12 of the other candidates on the United UAW slate appeared poised to win their elections, the unofficial count shows.
"Under our leadership, we successfully organized Volkswagen Chattanooga and won a first contract that provides job security, life-changing wages and benefits, and inspiration for tens of thousands of non-union auto workers to join our union," United UAW says on its platform. "Let’s keep it going. Our strike fund is strong, our army is growing bigger, wages are up, and we are ready to keep taking on corporate America."
The union election results came months after US President Donald Trump's Justice Department launched an investigation into Fain over claims that the UAW leader abused his authority to seek benefits for his fiancée and her sister. Fain has denied the allegations and condemned the probe as politically motivated.
Fain has also accused the UAW's court-appointed federal monitor, Neil Barofsky, of pursuing "trumped-up claims" against him due to a "political grudge" over the union president's outspoken support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.
Gary Chynoweth, vice chair of UAW Member Action, said in a statement Friday that "the members chose Fain, despite the monitor’s best efforts to create turbulence, because we’re ready to fight for retirement healthcare and protection from AI layoffs in 2028."
"Our work now is to keep helping members step up as leaders in a union that’s ready to fight," said Chynoweth.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a top ally of organized labor, congratulated Fain for winning reelection, calling him "one of the great union leaders in our country."
"He has taken on the billionaire class, won strong victories for his members and understands the need to organize, organize, organize," the senator wrote on social media. "Solidarity forever!"
"JD is the most irritating of Trump’s acolytes because he spouts absurd MAGA bullshit, knowing full well how stupid it is," said one critic.
As Republicans struggle to convince Americans to vote for the party whose policies have made workers' lives more difficult and expensive, they've increasingly invoked the tried-and-true bogeyman of socialism—a word for which Vice President JD Vance offered a bizarrely inaccurate definition during a Thursday press conference.
Asked at the White House how he defines socialism "personally" and why he thinks "socialist candidates are popping up everywhere across the country," Vance replied, "Oh man, you know, I guess, it's honestly, it's a hard term to define these days."
"Because very often socialism, you know, classically, you would think socialism is about prioritizing workers, and yet in reality I guarantee that most of the self-described socialists running across the United States of America are going to howl about this announcement today, which is prioritizing American workers over foreign workers," the vice president said, referring to President Donald Trump's new actions targeting alleged fraud and abuse in the H-1B/J-1 visa system.
"So I don't know what the term means anymore," Vance added. "I think in reality what it actually means in the American context is that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers and you want boys to play in girls' sports. That's what unites the socialists that I see running across the United States of America today."
Vance's apparent inability to define socialism, whose fundamental characteristic is collective ownership and control of the means of production—something very few, if any, Democrats are openly advocating—drew ridicule from across the political spectrum.
The vice president's comments came after multiple democratic socialist and other progressive congressional candidates—running on issues including Medicare for All, imposing higher taxes on the rich, and ending US support for military violence in the Middle East—won primary races to face off against Republicans in the November midterm elections.
"This is what they say when they're scared of people learning the real definition, when they're scared of people demanding more from their government and an economy that actually works for everybody," the nonprofit progressive news organization More Perfect Union said on social media.
New Republic writer Malcolm Ferguson said: "Vice President JD Vance was asked to define socialism on Thursday. Instead of even trying to sincerely engage with the concept, the [Yale]-educated lawyer and author offered a brain-dead, tailored-for Fox News answer."
"Regardless of what you think socialism means, it is certainly not 'replacing American workers with foreign workers and wanting boys to play girls’ sports," he added. "This was a confusing, unintelligent answer from a man who’s supposed to be quite smart."
Ryan Knight, better known as "Proud Socialist" on social media, said that Vance "almost told the truth (socialism is about prioritizing workers and more specifically about workers, not billionaires, owning the means of production), but then quickly remembered he serves the billionaires so started lying and fearmongering about foreigners."
What a stupid and intellectually dishonest answer by JD Vance. He defines socialism as anything that's icky. Under that definition, I think lima beans are socialist.
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob (@markjacob.bsky.social) October 8, 2026 at 8:30 AM
Right-wing policy expert Jessica Riedl said that "JD Vance defines 'socialism' as... the free movement of labor and capital across borders, and transgender girls playing on girls' sports teams."
"In other words, anything he personally finds icky," Riedl added. "And he's supposed to represent the highly educated, intellectual wing of MAGA."
Billy Binion, a reporter at the libertarian site Reason, called Vance's comments "laughably dishonest," invoking an ethos that former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich once described as "socialism for the rich, brutal capitalism for the rest of us."
"The Trump administration," Binion said, "would like to change the definition of socialism because it's *engaging in it* and has bought stakes in dozens of private companies."
Heather Parton, who publishes the progressive blog "Digby's Hullabaloo," wrote:b "First of all, you don’t get to 'personally' define socialism. It has a definition, and that ain’t it."
"Second, forgetting his fatuous suck-up to MAGA culture war nonsense in that comment, it must be noted that his Dear Leader is strong-arming one corporation into another into giving up pieces of their companies to the government," she continued, referring to Trump.
"JD is the most irritating of Trump’s acolytes because he spouts absurd MAGA bullshit, knowing full well how stupid it is," Parton added.
Reich also weighed in on the vice president's remarks, writing on social media that "Trump, Vance, and Republicans are terrified of policies that curb their own wealth and power, and the wealth and power of the oligarchs that bankroll them."
"That's why they're amping up the fearmongering about 'socialism,'" he added. "They've run out of cards to play."
A 15-year-old's hand was blown off, a 16-year-old suffered a devastating eye injury, and a 14-year-old reportedly lost most of his teeth as Amnesty International accused French police of using disproportionate force.
Young people across France suffered horrifying injuries this week as riot police attacked high school and university students, faculty, and parents who were joined by striking workers in the latest nationwide mobilization over the country's underfunded education system.
Hundreds of thousands of students, workers, and their supporters rallied at more than 170 demonstrations across France Tuesday, with the arrest total topping 6,000 people—including roughly 4,400 minors—since the current wave of demonstrations began on September 28, according to the country's Interior Ministry.
The school blockades and other protests began in blue-collar Parisian suburbs and rapidly spread across the country as students and their supporters demanded more teachers and staff, smaller classes, improved school buildings, an end to socially discriminatory university admissions, and an education system that does not force working-class youth to bear the cost of government austerity.
The Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), one of France's largest unions, urged its members to join Tuesday's mobilization alongside students and educators. The union said it would stand with high school and university students "including through strikes," while demanding major investment in public education.
"Beyond the issue of resources, students are demanding greater equality and social justice, aware that the policies of [President] Emmanuel Macron and his successive governments have deliberately damaged the principles of the French public education system," a coalition of unions including CGT said in a statement of solidarity.
Such solidarity was visible on the streets Tuesday as students from Épinay-sur-Seine marched alongside SUD-Rail railway employees, while education workers formed human chains to protect young protesters from police. Workers also joined students blockading a high school in Montpellier.
Protesters in some cities were met with police violence.

"The repression is the same as that employed against the Yellow Vests except that now it's our kids who are in the streets," said Julien, a CGT Total refinery worker and union activist, referring to the 2018 economic protests that swept the nation. "The high school and university students have opened the way, and we have to follow them."
Coline, a high school student in Le Havre, said that workers physically placed themselves between young protesters and police.
"Union members formed a human chain between us and the CRS," she said. "All workers should do it because our demands are theirs. They portray us as rioters when we just want a future."
Alarming scenes of police terror shocked many observers.
In Lens, a 15-year-old student suffered a devastating hand injury during clashes near his high school Monday. According to La Voix du Nord, the teenager lost his hand after a police grenade exploded. The precise circumstances remain under investigation, chiefly by the Inspection Générale de la Police Nationale (IGPN).
A fellow student, Chloé, rejected the authorities' claims that the teenager was injured when he picked up the grenade.
"The police started coming toward us," she told La Voix du Nord. "So we all started running in the opposite direction. They threw smoke grenades at us... We were running. We couldn't see. And my high schoolmate got it in his hand."
She said the injured student began shouting, "My hand! My hand!"
"I turn around and see that he doesn't have a hand anymore," she recounted. "We all gathered around him."
"We're students, we're young," Chloé added. "There's no need to do that. It was useless; we were already leaving."
A 14-year-old in Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône reportedly suffered a double jaw fracture after being struck by a tear gas grenade fired at close range. Le Monde said the incident is among several cases being investigated by the IGPN.
Another 14-year-old reportedly lost most of his teeth after a police officer apparently fired a grenade at his face at close range during a protest northwest of Paris.
“His jaw is sealed shut, he can no longer speak, and he eats through a straw,” his mother told reporters.
In Tours, a 16-year-old reportedly suffered a severe eye injury when police fired "less-lethal" projectiles, including rubber-coated steel bullets, into a crowd of protesters during a high school blockade.
Another student, 16-year-old Isabella, connected the police crackdown to the class inequalities underlying the movement.
"Everybody told us that school was the great leveler, but today that is not the case at all," she told The Guardian. "A teenager in the suburbs of Paris is never going to have the same opportunities as a student from the city center."
The protests have also become a political flashpoint, with Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his left-wing La France Insoumise party openly backing the students while rejecting government accusations that they are responsible for the unrest. LFI lawmakers have appeared alongside protesters, while Mélenchon has condemned the police response and called on his supporters to nonviolently resist what he called police “savagery.”
On Tuesday, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez refused to apologize for the police violence, drawing calls from the left for his resignation.
Amnesty International accused French authorities of answering protests with "disproportionate" force.
“Footage and testimonies widely reported over the last week raise alarming concerns about the dangerous use of tear gas, batons, and restraint techniques by police," Amnesty International France president Anne Savinel-Barras said Monday. "Tear gas grenades have been discharged recklessly, and rubber bullets have been fired, causing serious injuries."
“Authorities must ensure that any response to demonstrations is necessary and proportionate, and that children and young people peacefully demanding their right to education are protected rather than being beaten, tear-gassed, or arbitrarily detained," she added. "The priority should be the de-escalation of tensions, and authorities must take all available precautionary measures to avoid the need to use force.”
At least dozens of protesting educators, parents, and labor unionists have also been injured by police during the demonstrations.
Some police also reportedly refused to attack protesters.
Workers interviewed during the protests appeared undaunted and focused on their own demands, as well as those of the students.
“We’re sick of wage freezes; 60% of low-wage public sector workers are paid less than the minimum wage for a full workweek,” CGT Poitiers official Vincent Bohan told World Socialist Web Site during a march in Paris last week. “More and more people rely on us, but there are not enough of us to meet the population’s needs.”
“When you hear Macron’s speeches, each one more provocative than the last, with billions of euros spent on killing, while people in France are starving, one feels like telling him: Stop... help people struggling here rather than killing people elsewhere," Bohan said, referring to rising tensions with Russia and France's testing of a new generation of nuclear missiles. "Frankly, we are very worried.”
"The Trump SEC is seeking to bail out the struggling private equity and private credit industry with hardworking Americans' retirement savings."
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday proposed policies that SEC Chair Paul Atkins framed as an effort to promote private market investments by retail investors—or everyday Americans—while also "protecting those investors from bad actors and fraud," but critics accused the Republican-dominated federal agency of serving Wall Street at the expense of the public.
"Chair Atkins talks about the 'responsible retailization' of the private markets, but the rules the SEC proposed today are irresponsible," declared Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for the nonprofit Better Markets. "The SEC is supposed to protect retail investors from risky private market assets. Instead, it is encouraging investors saving for college and retirement to direct their savings to private market investments that do not offer greater returns but that do offer less disclosure and more limited legal recourse when harmed."
"Although hedge funds may charge fees based on performance to their investors, the SEC has long prohibited investment advisers from charging retail investors performance-based fees," Schiffrin explained. "This protects them from arrangements that might encourage advisers to take undue risks with retail client funds to increase their compensation. Yet the SEC's proposed rules would make such arrangements permissible. This change would eliminate a limitation on the ability of private funds that charge performance-based fees to sell to retail investors and would incentivize advisers to push retail clients into risky private funds that have performance-based fees."
The new rules would also make it easier to sell interval funds, which "hold complex and illiquid assets and charge high fees," Schiffrin noted. "Given that many interval funds have faced heightened redemption requests from existing investors seeking to exit these funds in recent months, now hardly seems like the time to further expose retail investors to these funds."
“Perhaps most troublingly, the SEC expands the categories of individuals who qualify as so-called 'accredited investors' to whom private market assets may be sold," he continued. Specifically, the agency said it is considering letting individuals with some certificates or licenses—such as certified public accountants, research analysts, and financial analysts and planners—qualify.
"Accredited investors are supposed to be institutions and individuals with enough assets to bear the risk of loss inherent in private market assets," Schiffrin stressed. "Now, the SEC would allow individuals to qualify as accredited investors without regard to their ability to lose money in the private markets."
The expert also highlighted the timing of these proposals, pointing to the agency's Monday statement that "reminded the private funds industry of its obligations regarding valuing assets and providing disclosure to investors," which Schiffrin said was "obviously intended to provide cover for the SEC's desired expansion of the private markets."
"Having previously downplayed the turmoil in the private credit markets, continued redemption requests by private credit investors forced the SEC to acknowledge that private market assets are particularly risky and to reassure investors it was not asleep at the switch," he said. "Yet the statement begs the question of why the SEC would seek to expose retail investors to the private markets at the same time it acknowledges the risks that private market assets pose even to institutional investors."
"The answer is that the SEC has lost its way," he concluded. "Its agenda is now the financial industry's agenda, and private funds need access to retail investors and their savings as institutional investors increasingly pull back from private markets. So the proposed rules the SEC issued today have nothing to do with 'democratizing access' to the private markets and everything to do with allowing the financial industry to prey on unsuspecting retail investors."
The SEC chair said Wednesday that the agency's latest moves "complement efforts undertaken pursuant to" President Donald Trump's August 2025 executive order on Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors—which Schiffrin warned last year "exemplifies the administration's determination to prioritize the interests of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street and retail investors."
"Let's be clear: Neither 401(k) plan sponsors or 401(k) plan participants—regular, hardworking Americans—are asking to replace stocks and bonds in their 401(k)s with risky private assets," Schiffrin said at the time. "Instead, the private funds industry needs a way to get its hands on the $12 trillion in Americans' retirement accounts to boost its profits and make up for the fact that institutional investors are fleeing the private markets due to mediocre returns, higher fees, and more risk."
Despite such criticism of Trump's order, the US Department of Labor unveiled its related proposal in March. Jim Baker, executive director of the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, pointed to the pending DOL policy in a Wednesday statement responding to the SEC action.
"With the proposed rules, combined with the DOL's 401(k) rule, the Trump SEC is seeking to bail out the struggling private equity and private credit industry with hardworking Americans' retirement savings," he said. "Private equity funds have lagged public markets while charging much higher fees, and institutional investors are pulling back from the asset class. These rules risk shifting more financial risk onto workers who rely on their retirement savings for long-term security."
"Private equity firms are already under pressure from a backlog of unsold assets and declining distributions to investors," Baker emphasized. “At the same time, policymakers are giving private equity access to retirement savers' 401(k) plans, raising serious questions about whether these investment risks are being shifted onto everyday retirement savers."
"Retirement accounts exist to provide security, not to bail out private market investments by shifting liquidity risk onto workers when markets turn," he added. "At a minimum, the SEC should hold private equity to the same disclosure and transparency standards expected of publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, and [exchange-traded funds], including clear reporting on what funds are investing in, the fees and expenses retirement savers are paying, the amount of debt funds are using, and how these investments are actually performing compared with stocks."
Key members of Congress also responded to the SEC's Wednesday proposals. While Republicans on the US Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee welcomed the push to expand the accredited investor definition, which aligns with Chair Tim Scott's (R-SC) Empowering Main Street in America Act, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was critical.
"Today, the SEC proposed a new rule that would override decades-old protections for Americans' retirements to allow Wall Street to start charging high, private equity-level fees on lower-cost retail funds," Warren said. "Americans already struggling to save in Trump's economy shouldn’t be used as piggy banks to boost the profits of Trump’s Wall Street buddies."
"Families are going further into the red just to cover basic essentials, all while the Trump administration touts hollow talking points about a booming economy."
Research published Tuesday shows that more than half of the income gains seen by the typical American worker since 2022 has been swallowed by debt payments, as high and still-rising costs of housing, groceries, utilities, and other essentials force families to turn to credit cards and other sources of borrowing to stay afloat.
The new report released by The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers estimates that take-home income for a typical US household rose by approximately $109 per month while the average worker's debt payments rose by $57. In households with a single earner, the groups noted, "52 cents of every dollar a worker gained went to paying down their debt before they could actually spend it on other things."
In two-income households in which both earners faced the average debt payment increase, "the household’s entire real income gain was lost to debt, and then some."
Credit cards and auto loans—which often come with extremely high interest rates—account for most of the debt burden carried by typical US households, which have seen their debt payments grow more than eight times as fast as their income over the past four years, according to The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers.
"The economy is rigged against working families, and this report shows one big reason why," US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement. "For the typical worker, more than half of every dollar of income growth is going right back out the door in debt payments. Instead of letting lenders rip off families, [President] Donald Trump and congressional Republicans should act today to protect families from getting trapped in cycles of debt, including a cap on credit card interest rates.”
Trump repeatedly vowed during his 2024 presidential campaign to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, but he has since done nothing substantive to fulfill that promise as the nation's credit card debt crisis continues to spiral amid deteriorating economic conditions, with sluggish hiring and inflation—fueled by the president's illegal war on Iran—outpacing wage growth.
"Families are going further into the red just to cover basic essentials, all while the Trump administration touts hollow talking points about a booming economy and fails to deliver on promises to lower costs,” said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for Protect Borrowers. “Today’s report shows just how dire the affordability crisis is for working people who are being forced to surrender their hard-earned income gains to paying off debt and padding the pockets of credit card executives and debt collectors."
"Growing household debt is burying America’s workers," she added, "and policymakers must take action to get them real relief."
The new research warns that, in the absence of ambitious policy action, the debt emergency facing working-class US households "is about to get worse," with many student-loan borrowers about to be forced into expensive repayment plans due to the Trump administration's assault on Biden-era relief efforts.
"Cancelling student and medical debt, capping interest rates, and restraining employer debt traps are all examples of solutions available to provide help to struggling households," the new report states. "We should also address the ways workers end up in debt in the first place through stagnant wages, eroded bargaining power, and lack of public provisioning. Together these interventions represent a coherent alternative to the status quo so that economic growth is measured by what workers actually keep and not just by what employers pay."
"We’re glad this settlement places limits on their ability to use federal workers as bargaining chips to push their extreme agenda during the next government shutdown, but the fight is far from over," said one union leader.
A coalition of federal employee unions won a settlement Friday requiring the Trump administration to abandon its policy authorizing mass layoffs during government shutdowns, after unions sued to block the firings of thousands of public servants.
“Today, working people won,” American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) president Everett Kelley said in a statement. “The administration tried to turn a shutdown into an excuse to fire the public servants who kept this country running without a paycheck on payday, and we refused to let it stand. We fought back, we held the line, and they backed down.”
“The people they tried to fire are hardworking Americans who care for our veterans, keep our airports safe, and make sure Social Security checks go out on time," Kelley added. "They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for their service, not used as pawns in a political fight they had no part in creating."
The settlement announced Friday settles litigation stemming from the Trump administration's actions during the 43-day government shutdown in 2025, which was the longest in US history. The administration had directed agencies to implement reductions in force (RIFs) targeting workers whose programs it deemed inconsistent with President Donald Trump's agenda.
Roughly 4,200 employees at seven federal agencies—including the Environmental Protection Agency and departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury—received RIF notices.
A federal judge in California subsequently blocked the administration from carrying out the layoffs, and workers separated through the shutdown-related RIFs were reinstated.
Under Friday's settlement, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management must notify agencies within 30 days that previous guidance authorizing shutdown-related RIFs has been rescinded. Agencies must remove blanket authorization for such layoffs from their shutdown contingency plans. If an agency later seeks to modify its plan to permit RIFs during a shutdown, it must provide the unions with 30 days' notice and publicly post the revised plan.
The settlement represents a significant setback for the Trump administration's broader effort to remake the federal workforce largely spearheaded by Russell Vought, director of Trump's OMB. Vought co-authored the policy portion of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a right-wing overhaul of the federal government that includes dramatic cuts to critical public programs and abolishing or gutting essential agencies.
The case was initially brought by AFGE and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and later expanded to include several other unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and National Federation of Federal Employees.
“Only an administration that wanted to hurt workers and help billionaires would use a government shutdown as a cynical pretext to fire tens of thousands of federal employees,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said Friday.
"Today’s victory is yet another rebuke to this administration’s illegal attacks on the people who keep this country running," she added. "And if they try it again, we will be waiting in the courts and on the streets to send a message that the American people won’t stand for these bully-boy tactics that hold workers’ careers to ransom to pursue a craven political agenda.”
While welcoming the win, AFSCME president Patrick Moran warned that "this billionaire-run administration continues to put politics between these essential workers and their public service, at great expense to our communities."
"We’re glad this settlement places limits on their ability to use federal workers as bargaining chips to push their extreme agenda during the next government shutdown," he added, "but the fight is far from over."
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said an advocate at the ACLU.
The Trump administration has billed its "mass deportation" agenda as a necessity to bring about an age of prosperity for US-born workers. But a new report suggests it's actually doing the opposite—exacerbating an already severe affordability crisis by suppressing wages, killing jobs, and raising costs.
On Wednesday, the ACLU and AFL-CIO published an analysis examining how the administration's unprecedented deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to communities around the country has not only created a climate of fear, but also caused labor shortages, reduced economic activity, and given employers new tools to suppress employees' wages.
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said Naureen Shah, director of government affairs at the ACLU's equality division.
Previous national data has already shown that, contrary to the Trump administration's argument that rounding up immigrant laborers simply creates room for those born in the US, areas that have experienced increases in ICE activity have also seen employment reductions for US-born workers.
"In our interdependent labor market, harm to one group of workers spills over to all those who labor alongside them or within the same supply chain, regardless of immigration status. Roughly 1 in 5 workers in our country is an immigrant, spanning all sectors of the economy," the report explains.
"Targeting this large and vital segment of the workforce sharply reduces the supply of labor, threatening the ability of employers to generate revenue and cover business expenses, including the wages of any remaining workers," it continues.
Reducing the labor supply consequently reduces production. The report argues that this is why industries with large numbers of immigrant laborers have seen skyrocketing costs for their products nationwide.
Data from previous deportation surges during the Obama administration shows that immigration enforcement has reduced construction labor, resulting in nearly 2,000 fewer completed homes on average and an 18% increase in home prices.
In June 2026, data showed that while core inflation was just 2.6% over the previous year, prices had shot up much more dramatically in immigrant-heavy sectors: The cost of lettuce was up 32.1%, landscaping was up 10.8%, home health care climbed 10.7%, whole milk increased 9%, and canned fruit jumped 7.9%.
The report also argues that ICE surges, which have often involved racial profiling and indiscriminate targeting, use of excessive force, and arrests of US citizens, have created terror in communities that suppresses economic activity.
A May working paper from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, which examined nearly 5,400 raids around the country during 2025, showed that areas targeted by ICE raids experienced a 2.7% decline in foot traffic and a 6.2% decline in spending per business per week, which the author extrapolated would amount to 8.1 billion fewer visits and as much as $14 billion in forgone spending annually across the nation.
US-born employees in sectors with large numbers of immigrant workers were hit especially hard. Data from "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota earlier this year demonstrates this in miniature.
Research released in June by the Upjohn Institute estimated that the surge of immigration agents cost the state’s leisure-and-hospitality sector 4,600 jobs, 3.8 million work hours, and $71 million in wages between January and March.
Economist Exequiel Hernandez, quoted in the ACLU/AFL-CIO report, said these findings highlight the danger of creating an "economy of fear."
"If fewer people are showing up to work, they’re making less income, they’re spending less," he explained. "If they’re spending less, businesses have to cut back in hiring and selling, and it’s really quite damaging."
The report cites projections from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) last year on what this could mean if the Trump administration meets its target of deporting 1 million people per year.
Using data from previous immigration enforcement studies, the EPI estimated that nearly 6 million fewer people could be employed by the end of President Donald Trump's second term if the administration follows through on its deportation promises. That includes 3.3 million immigrants, but also 2.6 million US-born workers, many of whom are working in immigrant-heavy sectors.
The report argues that a pathway to citizenship rather than deportation would not only be a more humane solution, but also deliver economic benefits that ripple through the economy, including for US-born residents.
It cites projections that allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens would increase US gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly $2 trillion over a decade and generate hundreds of billions in new tax revenue.
This is because legalization would allow workers to move into jobs that better match their skills rather than being confined to low-paying jobs that tend to accept them. It would also remove immigration enforcement as a threat that employers could use to suppress wages, both for immigrant and US-born workers.
"Working people are paying the price for an immigration system that is destabilizing entire industries and communities and making it easier to exploit workers,” said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. “As this report demonstrates, a broad pathway to citizenship for all would raise wages, create more and better jobs, and strengthen our economy in ways that help all of us."
House Resolution 1286 offers something like a blueprint for how working people in the countryside and city can unite around key principles that would reign in corporate abuses of power.
The late, great, farmer-essayist, Wendell Berry, wrote critically in Unsettling of America how our “modern” ideal of farming failed to include people. Asking, “Where are the farmers?” back in 1977, he warned how unquestionably embracing machine and chemical technology to “save labor” and control the environment will destroy not only nature, but also our rural relationships and communities.
Prophetic as he was, Berry did not foresee the extent to which our government—the Trump administration particularly—would take advantage of farmers and quicken the pace of rural desolation.
Look no further than the recent executive order, which against farmer protests, allows the import of over 600 million pounds of foreign beef into the US. While it was pitched as a way to lower prices for consumers, in fact, we now know that Brazilian billionaire Joesley Batista, owner of the international agribusiness giant, JBS, lobbied President Donald Trump for this deal. Adding insult to injury, the Iran war’s supply chain disruptions have led to increases in fertilizer and diesel prices, saddling farmers with more costs, while the retaliatory tariffs from the ill-conceived trade war with Canada will cut into US dairy export markets.
More than just numbers, people are relationships, families, and communities. Such recognition should guide our policies, which House Resolution 1286 and its supporters are trying to remind our legislators of.
Far from free, not to mention fair trade, Trump’s maneuvers show how our corporate-dominated supply chains are not only fragile, but prone to corrupt dealings that hurt working people. Demands for trade justice, with some alliances taking shape among farmers, workers, and small-business groups, show an alternative path forward.
Specifically, recently introduced House Resolution 1286 offers something like a blueprint for how working people in the countryside and city can unite around key principles that would reign in corporate abuses of power.
That Trump has such power to manipulate trade is due to how he decided back in July of this year not to renew the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), formerly the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, for another 16 years. This doesn’t mean that there is no regional trade deal, but that every year from now through 2036, our government will have to sit down with Canada and Mexico to negotiate terms.
This yearly schedule of negotiating the terms of the USMCA could be in the interest of working people if we had a government that stood by their side. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, especially with our current administration.
The economic toll that the NAFTA-turned-USMCA agreement took on working people has been severe. By Trump’s first term, studies showed that over 240,000 farms were lost in the United States thanks to the trade deal, while in Mexico, that number exceeded 2 million. The USMCA update, accomplished in 2019, has not been a boon for US farmers. From 2017 to 2024, we have seen a 8% decline of producers down to 1.88 million. Dairy farmers, who Trump loves to tout in dealing with Canada, have taken it on the chin year after year, with August of this year showing Wisconsin’s dairy herd count falling below 5,000 for the first time.
Let’s be real—Trump has no interest in treating the economic malaise that farmers are experiencing and that he rode twice into the White House. If anything, he’s making their problems worse.
To the contrary, House Resolution 1286 presents worker- and farmer- centered principles for trade in place of the crony capitalism and shady deals that Trump forces on us.
Within the resolution, demands include that trade policies ought to ensure fair wages for workers domestically and abroad, strengthen anti-monopoly policies, promote strong environmental standards, while also featuring data protection policies and regulations for Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Currently with 51 co-sponsors and endorsed by multiple organizations, including Citizens Trade Campaign, the AFL-CIO, United Steelworkers (USW), International Association of Machinists (IAM Union), United Auto Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), Sierra Club, National Family Farm Coalition, Public Citizen, Rethink Trade, and others, the resolution is definitely a wish list. Passing it will not automatically coerce the Trump regime to come to its senses and do right by working people. Still, calling for a set of principles to include in trade agreements is a good first step at much needed policy reform.
Wendell Berry’s work reminds us of the importance of making people central to economic affairs, especially in agriculture. More than just numbers, people are relationships, families, and communities. Such recognition should guide our policies, which House Resolution 1286 and its supporters are trying to remind our legislators of. While doubtful that Trump will listen, what could get his attention are the multiple groups and their members calling for change. And if our message is not heard, we may have to follow Berry in what he also taught us on multiple occasions, from marching against the Vietnam War to protesting mountaintop-removal coal mining, and take it to the streets.
"We've done everything asked of us, and more," said one fired journalist. "Yet when corporate plans fail, McClatchy executives run and hide while our workers and this community suffer all the consequences."
As social media networks filled with posts from journalists "deeply saddened" to reveal they were part of McClatchy's latest round of "gutting" layoffs this week, newspaper staffers and the unions that represent them highlighted "how local coverage will suffer" because over 90 workers were fired by the hedge fund-controlled publisher.
"I'm part of this bloodbath. After dodging layoffs for my entire 19-year career, I finally caught a stray as the Idaho Statesman gutted 60% of its staff," said sports writer Michael Lycklama, noting his union membership and six-months severance package.
"My heart goes out to my coworkers who have poured their blood, sweat, and tears into Idaho," he wrote. "We've done everything asked of us, and more. Yet when corporate plans fail, McClatchy executives run and hide while our workers and this community suffer all the consequences."
"These layoffs will create holes in our community and leave it poorer," he stressed. "There are now drastically fewer eyes watching your elected officials. Fewer reporters uncovering shady businesses. And fewer journalists to highlight and celebrate our state's unsung heroes."
With at least 90 workers let go across 17 McClatchy publications, the NewsGuild-CWA similarly warned Friday that "the departure of these talented reporters, visual journalists, and writers will immediately leave gaping holes in local coverage for dozens of communities across the United States."
At least seven reporters were fired from four newsrooms in Washington state: The Bellingham Herald, The News Tribune, The Olympian, and Tri-City Herald. The NewsGuild noted that "Tacoma will no longer have even a single dedicated journalist tracking city hall, Pierce County government, or local schools," while "the region near the Canadian border lost an environmental watchdog, and the Hispanic community can no longer turn to a Spanish-speaking reporter in Eastern Washington."
The Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild, a local representing reporters in Washington and Idaho, highlighted that "these are journalists who investigated local hospitals, served as watchdogs over state and local government, showed up at every high school game, jumped in to cover breaking news like wildfires, covered news in overlooked communities, and monitored development in one of the fastest-growing regions in the country."
"One of these papers will no longer have a dedicated reporter covering city hall. Another will no longer have anyone dedicated to covering the state capitol," the union said. "McClatchy has decided that short-term profits for a hedge fund matter more than the well-being of the communities that its newspapers are supposed to serve. That is a model that is destined to fail."
Employees of multiple California outlets were also impacted. The Fresno Bee lost staffers, as did the Modesto Bee, which laid off 25% of its newsroom. The Sacramento Bee, the city's "paper of record," the NewsGuild said, "lost dogged reporters and veteran journalists who worked for decades to serve readers in the capital region."
Across the country, The Lexington Herald-Leader, "one of two remaining statewide newspapers in Kentucky, laid off half of its Pulitzer-prize-winning newsroom," the NewsGuild detailed. "Those layoffs include a senior reporter who worked at the Herald-Leader for more than 20 years, all of the paper’s core political team covering the state legislature in Frankfort, the editor of that politics team, the newspaper’s primary city government reporter in Lexington, a longtime high school sports reporter, two University of Kentucky basketball and football reporters, the paper’s only remaining environmentalist reporter in Eastern Kentucky, the paper’s only regional economic development reporter, a photographer, and a video journalist."
The gutting of local journalism continues.I started as an intern at the Lexington Herald-Leader, which laid off a majority of its reporters today. The McClatchy company was bought by a hedge fund that promised to be a good steward of journalism. And here we are...www.lpm.org/news/2026-09...
[image or embed]
— Gil Durán (@gilduran.com) September 10, 2026 at 5:04 PM
As the union laid out, The State's cuts included "the only reporter doing environmental coverage for the state of South Carolina, a more than 30-year veteran of the local newsroom; an investigative reporter who was recognized by the SC Press Association for his work on charter schools; the only reporter covering the city of Columbia; the lead reporter on the Darline Graham Senate race; half of our photography team."
North Carolina breaking news reporter Jeffery Chamer announced on LinkedIn that "I've been informed this morning that I was one of eight people being laid off from The Charlotte Observer. I wish I had something uplifting and optimistic to say, but I’m honestly scared and sad right now. In two weeks, we’ll all be unemployed. And that just breaks my heart."
"I know deep down we'll all be OK and land on our feet, but for now it all feels terrifying," he said. "It’s also so shocking to think about the incredible talent the Observer is losing. I love my colleagues. They’re not just incredible reporters, but people too. I will miss them so, so much."
I, the only data reporter at the Charlotte Observer, am among the McClatchy layoffs in the bloodbath today. The HR person asked me not to talk about it! AMA. Anyway, here’s a link to one of my most important stories this year. www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/a...
[image or embed]
— Caitlin McGlade (@caitmcglade.bsky.social) September 10, 2026 at 11:32 AM
In Florida, "these layoffs leave the Bradenton Herald with half of its former staff, or only one editor and two reporters," the NewsGuild pointed out. "There will be no one to report on local government and no professional photographer and videographer to document the news."
The cuts also hit Florida papers southeast of Bradenton. As the union detailed: "After more than a century of operation, this layoff will leave the Miami Herald without a city hall reporter at the paper's namesake. It guts the entire writing staff at El Nuevo Herald, our sister paper that has doggedly covered majority-Latino Miami-Dade County in Spanish for decades."
Longtime former columnist Carl Hiaasen wrote on Facebook that "this is a death blow to the already skeletonized Miami Herald, once one of the country's top newspapers. I worked there for over 40 [years], and I feel heartsick for the talented journalists who've been gutting it out while McClatchy blithely keeps swinging the axe."
"By the time the company is finished, all the reporters left standing will fit in a phone booth, and millions of readers in South Florida will be forced to scrounge for actual, true local news on the always-reliable internet," he continued. "It's tragic, but there's a lesson here: If you own a newspaper company, don't sell it to a hedge fund unless you truly don't give a shit about your readers."
As The New York Times reported:
McClatchy has newspapers in 14 states. Formerly a family-run business, it was sold to the hedge fund Chatham Asset Management in 2020 after it declared bankruptcy.
The company has gone through rounds of layoffs in recent years. In late 2025, McClatchy closed its breaking-news desk and shut down its Washington, DC, bureau, while carrying out further layoffs across its newspapers.
This week's layoffs also impacted the Centre Daily Times in Pennsylvania, Missouri's Kansas City Star, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in Texas.
McClatchy leadership said in an internal email that for the past five years, the company has "made a deliberate choice to maintain our investment in local news reporters," and "consumer revenue declined 41% while local news expenses remained largely flat."
Thus, "we are reshaping our newsrooms and reducing positions as we align our resources more closely with what our subscribers value," the company claimed. "We are making these changes because the status quo no longer works."
Noting that message, Aaron Leibowitz, who left the Miami Herald last month, wrote on social media that "my former colleagues... deserve better than this disingenuous spin from McClatchy's hedge fund owners. Assuming those revenue figures are accurate, they're not just the result of consumer choice in a vacuum. They're also the result of corporate mismanagement."
Alexandra Duggan is a reporter for the Washington-based Spokesman-Review, which is not a McClatchy outlet—but as journalists across the Pacific Northwest were laid off on Thursday in "a damn bloodbath," she said on Bluesky that "some are people I've worked with, some are calling me crying because their mentors no longer have jobs."
"Journalism is so needed. Cutting investigative reporters, city reporters… Idaho and Washington will be worse off," Duggan said. "You might not care about McClatchy, but taking your hatred of hedge funds out on the reporters who are underpaid and just want to write for their communities ain't it. Those reporters did damn good work, owned by a hedge fund or not. It's rare you still see people who give a shit, and they did."