Tag: Justice

Opinion: We Need Guardrails

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As a long-time resident of Colorado, I appreciate guardrails.

Let me give you an example.

When I drive from Denver to Winter Park, Granby and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I need to go over Berthoud Pass on U.S. 40. I rely on guardrails on the eastern approach to Berthoud to protect against situations like a flat tire, driving when exhausted, or even an avalanche — all of which could plunge me hundreds of feet to the valley floor without that barrier.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “guardrail” as “a bar along the edge of something steep, such as stairs or a cliff, to prevent people from falling off.” But the term is also used metaphorically to refer to regulations or frameworks designed to ensure ethical conduct and prevent abuses of power.

Vice President Harris warned voters in 2024 that Donald Trump, if re-elected as president, would not have any effective guardrails. That prediction was accurate. In his first 16 months of this second term, Trump has operated without most of the institutional guardrails that have constrained his predecessors.

Trump populated his cabinet and his top-level advisors in his first term with those who had deep knowledge of the perils of acting thoughtlessly. This time, his primary criterion has been their loyalty to Trump. Cabinet meetings have become parodies, with person after person praising him, discussing the supposed wisdom of his decisions, competing with each other for his approval. The result, unsurprisingly, is that no one in the Executive Branch, with the exception of Fed. Chair Jerome Powell, is willing to second-guess his decisions.

The Congress has abdicated its institutional role as a co-equal branch of government. Senate and House Republicans have voted against five different War Powers resolutions against the increasingly unpopular war against Iran. Even Republicans who oppose endless wars have been quieted by the threat of primary election challenges.

Overall, the federal courts have been less deferential to Trump. The Supreme Court has used its shadow docket to grant Trump a series of stays in decisions concerning immigration and other matters.

But, Trump has had less success getting unfriendly countries to bend to his wishes. Iran, in particular, has fought Trump to a standstill in his war against that country, blocking the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It has refused to meet with American envoys as long as the American blockade continues. “Since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully – or simply not negotiating,” German Chancellor Merz said, “a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Trump has said that he doesn’t “need international law” and that his power is constrained by his “own morality.” That’s like relying on the sobriety of an alcoholic to keep that person from plunging hundreds of feet to his death from the Berthoud Pass road.

No president in American history, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, has needed guardrails. Other presidents, even those who have made major changes to the federal government, have operated mostly within the law.

FDR, for example, got his programs adopted by Congress and appealed directly to the American people in support of his programs. When he made controversial proposals, such as to increase the number of Supreme Court justices after that court had ruled against New Deal programs, he tried to do that by legislation and retreated in the face of public opposition. Abraham Lincoln populated his cabinet with political rivals. Other presidents have filled their cabinets with powerful people with strong agendas, such as Alexander Hamilton, Frances Perkins and Henry Kissinger. No president other than Trump has needed or tolerated the level of pure sycophancy shown by Trump’s band of yes- people.

The ultimate guardrail, however, is the people.

People across the country have rebelled against ICE’s militarized, aggressive, and lawless war against immigrants. Millions have participated in No Kings rallies. Trump’s tariffs have delivered higher prices while manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Public opinion polls show that voters have turned against Trump because of economic woes, increased inflation, and the war against Iran.

The ultimate check and balance in our constitutional order is the voter. If control of the House and/or the Senate passes the Democrats this November, the Congress will be able to perform its traditional role of guarding against autocratic power by the Executive Branch.

There are many ways in which a Democratic-controlled Congress can exercise that power. It almost certainly will launch investigations into the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and into the myriad and often illegal ways it has operated. It can use the power of the purse to reinstate agencies that have been abolished or gutted, such as U.S. AID and the Department of Education.

We need to do everything we can to get the people to restore the institutional guardrails that have been missed during the second Trump term. And, if a blue tsunami appears in six months, the Democrats will need to deliver.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that American democracy and the future of the world are on the line.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Response to Louisiana v. Callais Decision

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court just completed a project by Chief Justice Roberts, waged for more than four decades, to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act, seriously harming representative democracy in this country.

First, a brief history lesson.

From 1619 to 1865, most African Americans in the U.S. were enslaved, with “no rights which the white man was bound to accept,” as stated in Dred Scott v. Sandford. After the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 15th Amendment, Black individuals in the South were given and then deprived of voting rights. For nearly 90 years, African Americans were prevented from voting and subjected to Jim Crow laws in the former Confederate States. That ended, formally, in 1965, with the Voting Rights Act. But, John Roberts began working to eliminate the VRA’s protections as a young lawyer in 1982. He completed those efforts with his decision on April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais.

The VRA has two enforcement provisions in Sections 2 and 5. The pre-clearance language in Sec. 5 required legislatures in certain states, principally in the South, to clear any changes to voting procedures in advance with the U.S. Department of Justice. The Supreme Court decided in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 that those pre-clearance provisions were no longer needed because “things had changed dramatically” since 1965 and “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem [racial discrimination in voting] speaks to current conditions.”

It is true that the former restrictions against Black voters, such as poll taxes, had disappeared in those years, but racial discrimination in voting persisted. Those states, predictably, immediately began enacting voting restrictions against African American voters. Section 2 still offered the possibility of attacking legislative redistricting that adversely affected Black voters. For decades, Southern legislators have “packed” Black citizens into a few districts and “cracked” other African American voters into white majority districts. Roberts hollowed out Section 2, which was used in those voting dilution cases, in Callais.

The heart of the majority opinion in that decision is a new requirement for challenges to a redistricting scheme. The plaintiffs now need to show the new district lines are not done for partisan purposes. Since the vast majority of Black voters in the South are Democrats, districting to support the Republican party is therefore also done for racial reasons. Partisan redistricting is racial districting in the South.

The Louisiana secretary of state declared an “emergency” after Callais was handed down. The clear purpose of that declaration, declared three days before primary voting in that state was scheduled to begin, is to redistrict either or both of the congressional districts now represented by Black individuals in Louisiana. Up to twelve Black- represented districts now are in peril of racial dilution. In 2019, the Supreme Court decided, in Rucho v. Common Cause, that claims of partisan gerrymandering cannot be brought in federal court despite the fact that partisan gerrymandering is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from taking an action based on the viewpoint of a speaker, especially when the speech is political and when the action harms the speaker. A person cannot be deprived of a business license because of that person’s speech, but that same person can be deprived of the right to have effective representation because of speech and association with others. The Supreme Court decided in Rucho not that such partisan gerrymandering was legal, but rather that it would not do anything about it. Callais will result in racial gerrymandering that will deprive Black voters in the South of representation by legislators who support their interests. Rucho deprives all voters of the right to be represented by people who support their interests.

The branch of the federal government that is not selected by the voters, populated by judges with life terms, has decided to destroy representative democracy in this country. It is thwarting the will of Congress. It is deciding these cases based on a fictional view of reality. It is exaggerating the partisan divide in the states by incentivizing Democratic legislators to redistrict to favor Democrats and Republican legislators to favor Republicans.

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are now politicians in black robes. That could destroy the Court, or representative democracy, and maybe both. If the voters do not elect a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate in 2026, and if that majority does not effectively address this issue, Black legislators and representative democracy will be in mortal danger.

Help us move the needle forward in getting democracy back into Congress during the midterm elections with by making a donation of any amount to the Stand Up For Workers PAC.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Trump’s War On Iran Will Add to American Workers’ Economic Woes

Posted on by Alayya Arrison

American workers, already whipsawed by the effects of Trump’s capricious tariffs and other uncertainties of the economy, are likely to be the group most adversely impacted by the war against Iran according to labor economists and other economic analysts. 

Such effects include:

1. Jobs, Hiring, and Economic Stability

While direct job losses are hard to predict, the indirect effects are clearer and concerning. If the conflict drags on, consumer spending may fall, businesses may slow hiring, and layoffs could follow.

A major disruption is already underway: the near shutdown of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for roughly 20% of global petroleum shipments. Oil prices jumped nearly 10% after the conflict began, raising costs across industries from shipping to manufacturing.

This threatens a fragile recovery in U.S. manufacturing. Rising input costs for energy, materials, and transportation are already surging at their fastest pace in years. As production becomes more expensive, companies may scale back operations, cut hours, or reduce their workforce.

Supply chain vulnerabilities extend beyond oil. For example, a prolonged closure of the Strait could choke off a significant portion of the world’s helium supply—critical for semiconductors, medical equipment like MRI machines, and defense technologies—putting additional jobs at risk.

At the same time, the growing reliance on digital infrastructure leaves businesses exposed to cyberattacks. Iran and its allies have historically used cyber warfare in response to military conflict, and disruptions could halt business operations, threatening jobs across sectors.

2. Rising Costs for Everyday Life

Workers will also feel the impact at home, especially through rising energy and food costs.

Gasoline and diesel prices are expected to climb, along with electricity costs driven by higher natural gas prices. These increases hit lower-income workers hardest, particularly those with long commutes, as more of their income is diverted to basic transportation.

Food prices (already a strain) could rise further. Higher fuel costs increase the price of transporting goods, while disruptions to fertilizer supplies (much of which originates from the Persian Gulf) could reduce agricultural output. The result: higher grocery bills and tighter household budgets.

3. Long-Term Outlook for Workers

Unlike past wars, this conflict may not produce a significant boost in employment. Advances in technology like drones and automation reduce the need for human labor even during wartime production.

History offers a cautionary note: labor shortages can sometimes strengthen workers’ bargaining power, but they can also accelerate automation, ultimately reducing jobs.

Meanwhile, financial markets are already reacting. Rising energy prices and uncertainty have triggered declines in major stock indexes. If the conflict continues, economists warn of a broader slowdown. Businesses may pull back on hiring or cut jobs altogether, raising the risk of a recession.

As one economist put it, without a clear exit strategy, the economic effects of this conflict could be long-lasting, leaving American workers to bear much of the burden.

 

Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member

MAGA Strategy Appears Aimed at Overturning Defeat In Midterm Elections

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As the November elections draw closer, statements and actions of the White House administration, along with pending legislation it has been pushing, offer clues as to the steps Trump supporters are contemplating as they seek to prevent the unfavorable results polls are predicting. A few mid-term losses could cost them their control of both houses of Congress.

Pres. Trump made a point, in his State of the Union address, to urge Congress to pass H.R. 7296, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also called the SAVE Act. That bill would requires that states take affirmative steps to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship; and establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens. Individuals seeking to vote in federal elections would be required to present an eligible photo identification document. The bill provides for criminal penalties for violations.

Most Americans do not have easy access to citizenship documents or photo IDs. Tens of millions of Americans lack ready access to election officials, during office hours. This bill, if enacted, would create a new poll tax that would disenfranchise those voters.

Another such legislative effort to restrict voting appears in H.R. 7300, the so-called “Make Elections Great Again Act.” Like the “SAVE” proposal, this bill would require photographic identification of would-be voters; and would require states to maintain voter registration forms. It repeals various existing voting support statutes, and substitutes the stricter barriers to participation.

These bills have no realistic chance of passing the Senate if Democrats filibuster them. Sen. John Cronyn, the Senate majority leader, opposes amending the filibuster rules to enable these bills to pass. That is because he knows that, if the Senate would do so, Democrats would be able to repeal these bills and to pass the much more progressive John Lewis Voting Rights without having to worry about a Republican filibuster.

Sen. Cornyn has threatened to force Democratic Senators to do a “talking filibuster,” that is, to take the floor of the Senate and to talk the bills to death. Senate Democrats are willing to take him up on that challenge, since virtually all of them oppose these bill.

In addition, the White House has taken actions that appear aimed at skewing or discrediting the results of the November elections should the election result in loss of that majority. First, the administration recently, for no readily apparent reason, successfully sought a judicial warrant requiring civilian election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, to turn over to the F.B.I. all ballots and tabulation materials relating to the 2020 presidential election. Despite repeated audits of these election returns showing that the White House occupant lost that election, he continues to repeat his lies claiming that he won.

Possession of the actual ballots used for that election will at this point not be likely to impact that result now five years in the past. But carrying out this seizure action will serve well as a dry run for taking similar actions in select districts this fall, should his favored candidates there lose. It should be a simple matter in that case, should the courts permit it, to seize the actual ballots used and, having exclusive access to them, take what steps are necessary to substitute a favorable, untrue result in favor of the chosen candidate.

This potential for preparing a strategy for replacing actual ballots with fabricated alternative papers favoring MAGA candidates offers a plausible rationale for the seizure of the 2020 ballots, which otherwise appears to have no realistic purpose.

In addition to this bizarre ballot seizure (which was supervised, in person, both by the director of national intelligence, whose functions are limited by law to international issues; and by the president himself), recent developments in the anti-immigrant campaign present additional aspects of the administration’s ongoing policy initiatives that could be used towards the same election-derailment end. As has been amply demonstrated in Minneapolis (as well as Los Angeles, Chicago and other locales) the administration now has at its beck and call a paramilitary organization, complete with uniforms, firearms, teargas, masks and badges, to implement its goals by force. These federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“I.C.E.”) agents, have shown a nearly complete lack of compassion, courtesy, professionalism or respect for the rights of other Americans or even any other humans, to say nothing of the rule of law.

These agents’ inclination towards unjustifiable violence has cost the lives of at least two U.S. citizens protesting in Minneapolis. Perhaps more troubling, their actions are chillingly reminiscent of another group, the SA or Sturmabteilung, which was active in assisting in the Nazi takeover of the German government in the 1930s. While arguably more extreme than the I.C.E. agents’ conduct, the SA harassed and attacked demonstrators opposing the Nazis, and killed a number of them.

These mask-wearing, law-breaking ICE agents, who are reportedly being assigned as security for American athletes at the winter Olympic games in Italy, could just as well be deployed broadly around the nation, to “guard” polling places in the fall elections. At the very least, their presence could be counted on to dissuade many voters who are aware of ICE’s reputation for violence even against citizens, sometimes leading to death; or who are leery of being seized and deported. Indeed, no less a figure than former adviser to the chief executive, and prominent MAGA activist Steve Bannon, as well as presidential spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, have been quoted saying that this use of the I.C.E. armed force is already under serious consideration. And the chief executive has stated publicly that “Republicans” should take over managing the election process come November.

The documented absence of serious voting irregularities in the U.S. means that the true motivation for these initiatives must lie elsewhere, and given the Republican fear of losses in November, restricting turnout of Democratic voters seems like a realistic possibility.

Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are to be managed by the states, meaning that these enactments could be subject to legal challenge if adopted. Moreover, despite favorable votes in the House, to get either or both of these bills passed in the Senate, Republicans would have to amend the filibuster rules, which, given Democratic opposition, it appears they will not attempt to do. Since 46 of the 47 Senate Democrats oppose both bills, the Democrats may be able to talk both bills to death; but the threat remains.

The fall elections are far away, and Republicans still have time to win back voters the traditional way, with positive responses to the most crucial issues, such as affordability and correcting the abuses of the immigration crackdown, However, their focus appears rather to be on changing the outcome by making burdening the process and reducing the numbers of voters. With the tools noted, including the ability to seize critical documentation at the heart of the election, and the powerful I.C.E. armed force, at its disposal, it is easy to see how the administration could anticipate overcoming even the serious opposition of many American voters to its policies and practices.

As encouraged as they may be by recent negative survey results for the White House occupant and his agenda, opponents of these attempts at distorting the upcoming elections must remain vigilant about protecting the true safeguards built into the process as it exists, including the freedom and independence of state and local election authorities. This vigilance must include continuing monitoring of efforts to tinker with the process, and to make changes likely to intimidate or discourage voters, including imposing federal requirements on, and restricting the autonomy of, local authorities. Such changes must be resisted vigorously by public statements and demonstrations, and by lawsuits if need be. While victory in a few districts in November could mean such opponents regain the majority, it requires only a similarly small number of victories to keep the present “Republican” majority in power.

Stratagems like those noted above could be all that is needed to prevent victory by the administration’s opponents. Failure to act to oppose and block those stratagems by any and all means may lead to the loss, permanently, of the key core mechanism of democratic government for this beloved country.

Written by Paul Merry, Stand Up For Workers Board Member

The Gavel and Your Paycheck: Why the Latest Judicial Nominations Matter for Every American Worker

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

Whether you are a barista, a middle manager, or a factory supervisor, you probably don’t spend your Tuesday mornings checking the federal judicial nomination list. It feels like “D.C. noise”—distant, political, and largely irrelevant to your daily shift.

But as a plaintiff’s lawyer in Austin, TX who fights for workers nationwide, I’m here to tell you: The person sitting behind that federal bench may have more power over your career than your own boss does.

And, the current administration is changing the game on judicial nominations and the face of the judiciary in a way that may harm workers’ rights for decades to come. As we start 2026, the rules of the game are changing, and politics is to blame. If you’ve ever dealt with employment law or care about these issues, the latest news from Washington should be on your radar.

Recent reports from Reuters confirm that the administration has launched into 2026 with four new judicial nominees, including Anna St. John, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Reuters, Jan 7, 2026). St. John comes from the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, a group known for its “crusade” against class action settlements—the very tool workers use to band together when a company steals wages or discriminates on a mass scale.

This follows a year of rapid appointments aimed at reshaping the courts with younger, “originalist” judges. Some of these lifetime appointees have raised serious alarms. For instance, Whitney D. Hermandorfer, a 37-year-old nominee for the Sixth Circuit, has faced intense scrutiny for her lack of trial experience and her history as lead counsel defending restrictive state laws that intersect with worker privacy and health (Truthout, June 10, 2025).

At the same time, Bloomberg Law notes a significant change in how these nominees are being revealed. By bypassing traditional vetting periods—shrinking the window from the standard 28 days to as little as 48 hours for some nominees—the opportunity for regular citizens and legal experts to scrutinize these lifetime appointments has virtually vanished (Bloomberg Law, Nov 10, 2025).

Why does this matter to the average worker? Because these judges generally have a broad skepticism of worker protections and a deep-seated affinity for corporate autonomy. Furthermore, we are seeing a judiciary increasingly friendly to mandatory arbitration. You likely signed one of these in a stack of paperwork on your first day. It’s a clause that says if the company breaks the law, you can’t sue them in public court. Instead, you have to go to a private, secret hearing.

The 2025-26 nominees are largely pro-arbitration and anti-class action. This means that for the millions of Americans in retail, healthcare, and tech, the “right to a trial” is becoming a relic of the past. When judges refuse to strike down unfair arbitration clauses or make it impossible to file a class action, they effectively hand large corporations a “get out of jail free” card.

The law is only as strong as the person interpreting it. While 2026 brings new challenges for the American worker, it doesn’t mean you and I are powerless. It just means you have to be smarter, better prepared, and more involved than before.

Lifetime appointments mean these decisions will affect not just your current job, but your children’s jobs. We must use the ballot box and our collective voices to ensure that those who hold the gavel actually respect the rights of the people who do the work.

Written By Austin Kaplan, SU4W Board Member and Attorney at the Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC

Report from the Occupied City of Minneapolis: The Chilling Impact of ICE Operations

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

I am on the ground in Minneapolis, witnessing a city transformed by fear and uncertainty.

The killing of Renee Good occurred just minutes from my home and Alex Pretti just a few blocks further—a vivid reminder of the pervasive violence that now shadows even the most familiar corners of this beautiful, loving community. I have lived in this city since 1980. We pride ourselves on being a progressive, welcoming place, where diversity is celebrated and kindness is the norm. Today, that sense of safety and belonging feels far away.

The atmosphere here is heavy with anxiety. Many residents, particularly those from Hispanic backgrounds, are afraid to leave their homes, even for essential tasks like buying food. I am one of those old-fashioned people who still receive a daily paper at my door. Just this week I received a heartfelt letter from the Hispanic couple who delivers my newspaper, apologizing for missed deliveries out of fear for their safety. Their words echo the sentiments of countless others, including workers, students, and worshippers who now avoid workplaces, businesses, schools, and churches. The threat of ICE operations has cast a long, dark shadow over everyday life here, prompting many to stay indoors and isolate themselves from the community that we all love.

The local economy is also visibly suffering. Minority-owned businesses, once vibrant centers of commerce and culture, are now struggling as customers and employees alike stay away.  Widespread stories of raids and detentions have sent shockwaves through the business community, leading to reduced economic activity and loss of income for families dependent on these establishments. The ripple effect extends to schools and churches, where attendance has plummeted, further eroding the social fabric of our city.The current climate in Minneapolis evokes troubling historical parallels. The fear, the suspicion, the sense of being watched and hunted. These are not memories from another time and place, but realities faced by our community today. The indiscriminate nature of the operations here leaves no one untouched, and the psychological toll is immeasurable. It is unspeakable that such conditions exist in a city known for its openness and progressive values.

As if the social and economic challenges were not enough, Minneapolis is now gripped by the bitter cold of winter. The national news reported last night that the city streets were quiet.  Well, no kidding. It was 4 below zero. We are used to the cold, but combine that with ICE, and the effect on the community is unbearable.

Minneapolis is enduring an occupation of fear and uncertainty, its people held captive not just by ICE operations but by a loss of trust, security, a safe home and a stable workplace. Good people are afraid, and the damage to our community—socially, economically, and emotionally—is profound. It breaks my heart to see what is happening here.

Reliable reports place the percentage of undocumented immigrants in Minnesota at 1.5 percent. That’s right, 1.5 percent. Despite that low number, we are being targeted.  Minneapolis is a politically progressive city, the first district in the country to elect a Muslim representative to Congress. The relationship between our politics and the target on our back is unmistakable, and that should make us all consider where we are and what we need to do.

Written By James Kaster, Founder and Chair of Stand Up For Workers and Partner at Nichols Kaster in Minneapolis.

Cracks In MAGA’s Base Encourages Worker Advocates Preparing For Fall Elections

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As the new year begins, the seemingly unending series of missteps by the current White House, especially on the economy, is feeding a growing number of defections of Trump loyalists away from their unbreakable bond to the chief executive.

This turn away from him, shown by recent polling, gives additional openings for worker advocates to return a pro-worker majority to Congress come November.

An NBC poll from last month reported a drop of 8 points among respondents “strongly” favoring the chief executive, down from a high of 78% in April. Such a support loss is significant considering the chief executive’s narrow margin of victory in 2024.  The same poll showed the percentage of “MAGA” Republicans has dropped from 57% in April to 50% last month.

The data shows voters increasingly disapprove of his handling of the economy, with just 26% believing Trump is doing a good job. The New York Times reported that as of January 2,  Trump’s disapproval rating was at 54%, compared with approval of 42%. Also, a majority of Americans, including one-third of Republicans,  now hold Trump more responsible than Biden for the economy.

Trump has also seen faltering numbers within his own party: only 75% of Republicans approved of his handling of the economy in November, down from 82% in July, according to Marquette University polling; and his approval rating among white, college-educated men dropped to 40% from 47% in June according to Fox News polling.  

The president has experienced several notable breaks with his MAGA base in recent months. Despite his resistance, the House approved legislation last month requiring the Justice Department to release documents detailing its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Trump endorsed the bill after it won enough Republican support to pass, however, his Department of Justice has still reportedly failed to produce some million additional pages.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that leaders of the Republican “MAGA” wing, alienated by his obliviousness to the cost of living, are “checking out” on Trump. In effect, it reports that Trump has reneged on the most important promises he made to win MAGA votes, including halting cost of living and inflation increases, as well as his prioritizing of international affairs.

A recent Economist/YouGov poll (Nov. 28-Dec. 1) found Trump had a 38% approval rating and 57% disapproval rating, the seventh week in succession that his rating was a -15% or lower. He ends the year with 39% approval and 56% disapproval ratings in this poll, a downward trend since the start of his second term: 51% of respondents said the economy is getting worse.

Under a November poll by NPR/PBS/Marist, Democrats have an advantage headed into next year’s midterms, with 55% saying they were more likely to vote Democratic, compared to 41% saying they would vote Republican. 

Potentially more ominous for the administration, polls reflect disillusionment with the chief executive among some groups whose support was key to his victory.  Specifically, Hispanic and Latinx voters are reconsidering their choices, according to media interviews. This offers an answer to the question whether the favorable swing of these voters was a permanent or momentary realignment.

Pew Research Center polling reflects this change. Latinos have grown pessimistic since the 2024 presidential election. Most say their situation has worsened, and as Trump’s second term unfolds, Latinos are increasingly critical of his job performance and immigration/economic policies – key issues for Latino voters.

In a striking result, some 55% of Latinos feel “very strongly” that Trump has done a bad job as president, contrasted with 18% who feel “very strongly” the opposite. The same polling finds pessimism has spiked among Latinos. 68% of Hispanic adults say the situation in the U.S. is worse for Hispanics today than a year ago, the first time in the poll’s two-decade history that a majority said their situation deteriorated. 61% of U.S. Latinos said Trump’s policies worsened the economy, while roughly one-third struggled to pay for groceries, medical care, and housing.

Blunders committed in acting on policy fronts may help explain the rising disillusionment. As one example, the demolition of the White House East Wing, has been met with disapproval from a broad spectrum of voters in polls. Trump building a $400 million dollar gilded “ballroom” while increasing numbers of Americans have trouble feeding and housing their families cannot have assuaged voters’ economic disappointment.

The recent, and apparently misdirected, military strike in Nigeria, ostensibly to help Christian residents but landing in an overwhelmingly Muslim province, appears to be an attempt at shoring up failing support among fundamentalist Christians, and may betray concern among advisers about softening of support from this element of their base.  

The plethora of actions aimed at institutionalizing the racist and white supremacist attitudes of Trump and his key advisers, including Stephen Miller, may also offer a basis for worker advocates to energize other minority group members. Indeed, while polling shows support for the administration’s efforts to tighten the southern border, it also reflects negativity towards the efforts to remove immigrants generally. The New York Times reported in November that most Americans favor reforming the legal immigration process instead. Decisions to halt visiting rights and immigration application processing for nearly forty (largely Black or brown) nations can hardly comfort Americans with relatives there. This is particularly striking when contrasted with the widely publicized policy granting accelerated immigration processing to (white) South Africans.  

It is too soon to know the American public’s view of the latest international-law-breaking gambit: the raid to have U.S. troops apprehend Venezuela’s president, after conferring with U.S. oil companies. But, the often-stated goal of seeing these corporations take over oil production can hardly be expected to mollify Trump voters annoyed with his prioritization of international matters.

In sum, a worker advocate campaign strategy emphasizing the administration’s failure to address the crowning themes of improving economic conditions and immigration control should resonate with a wide range of voters come November. Careful attention to the specific issues most important in individual districts, combined with the general economic pain theme, offers promise of change that will make a difference for the workers on whom the economy truly depends.

Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member