By Christian Collins
Last month, the push for college athletes to collectively bargain gained significant momentum with the news that football players at Stanford University, the Oregon State University women’s basketball team, and over 100 women’s college basketball players have publicly expressed their desire to bargain as employees and taken key steps toward unionizing. Unionization would allow players a direct say in key terms of their athletic participation, from health and safety to transfers, eligibility, and compensation.
These developments come at a time when Congress is actively considering legislation to dramatically reshape college sports. Last year, a bill that would prevent college athletes from being recognized as employees and enshrine antitrust protections for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) into law—the Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements (SCORE) Act—was introduced in the House and gained 21 cosponsors. This summer, the Protect College Sports Act (PCSA) passed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on a 19-9 vote. The PCSA cleared a major hurdle this week after winning a Senate cloture vote 74-24, despite the bill text not being finalized or released to the public at the time of the vote and with several legal questions on bill provisions that have yet to be addressed.
College Athletes Meet the Legal Standard to be Labeled Employees
Two pathways—collective bargaining and federal legislation—represent the possible avenues by which current tensions in college sports may be resolved. Collective bargaining would guarantee protection under federal law through allowing college athletes to jointly negotiate with colleges and the NCAA over the terms and conditions of their athletic participation. To avoid going to the bargaining table with athletes, colleges and the NCAA have sought intervention from Congress to instead be protected from federal law for past and present exploitation. PCSA, like its predecessor SCORE, seeks to place the blame of financial gaps squarely on the shoulders of athletes and solidify the longstanding advantages that have enabled colleges to profit handsomely off the talent and hard work of those athletes—without having to compensate them fairly or grant them the rights and protections that employees are entitled to.
The system that has persisted for decades in which athletes generate billions of dollars in revenue for colleges, the NCAA, and media companies, yet see a small share returned to them in the form of scholarships is now threatening to collapse. In recent years, courts have increasingly recognized athletics participation as work and athletes as employees. In NCAA v. Alston in 2021, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that “amateurism” is a valid defense against the NCAA complying with laws that ensure fair market competition. Following the decision, the NCAA eliminated its rules restricting athletes from receiving compensation from endorsements, ushering in the new era of “name, image, and likeness” (NIL) deals. Relatedly, the House v. NCAA settlement in 2025 awarded current and former Division I athletes $2.8 billion in damages due to denying them NIL compensation and established fairer compensation for future athletes at schools that agreed to the settlement through direct revenue sharing of $20.5 million per year, rising 4 percent annually.
Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Biden in 2024 determined that a group of Dartmouth college basketball players met the common-law definition of employee, which “requires that the employer have the right to control the employee’s work, and that that work be performed in exchange for compensation,” pointing to the non-monetary benefits that athletes receive—even in the absence of scholarships, per Ivy League rules. While the players voted to unionize following this decision, they withdrew their petition to be recognized after the 2024 election in anticipation of an incoming NLRB that would be more likely to reject their petition.
Congress Can’t “Protect College Sports” by Ignoring the Participants
While the PCSA is neutral on its face concerning the question of athletes’ employment status, it would enshrine into law a range of terms and conditions of athletic participation, eliminating athletes’ opportunities to bargain over these terms and in many cases setting terms that are favorable to schools, conferences, and the NCAA. As the American Economic Liberties Project wrote in its memo opposing the legislation, the bill “puts Congress in the shoes of the players and makes choices and tradeoffs they wouldn’t necessarily make in a true collective bargaining process, where health, safety, wellness, and economic terms would all be on the table.” These terms impact not just players’ experience in sports, but also in academics and their personal lives. Transfer rules, for example, seek to prevent frequently changing rosters and athletes easily seeking better contracts elsewhere. In doing so, it also limits athletes’ choice about which schools and teams are best for them as students to, for example, pursue a new major or be closer to family. In addition, it allows schools to use the transfer portal as a weapon to wield against students by kicking them into the portal as punishment, like if they’re suspected of organizing other athletes. Rather than allowing athletes a voice in the process, the PCSA locks into law the major terms of their participation, preventing athletes from winning better terms in the future and extending anticompetitive immunity to the NCAA that few industries enjoy.
Most concerningly, college sports legislation has been crafted with little to no input from the college athletes themselves. As one current University of Utah football player observed during a Senate committee hearing on the PCSA, “It’s like there’s no student-athlete in those conversations at all.” In recent weeks, current and former college athletes across the country have come out against the bill. A letter with signatories from a range of schools argues that the PCSA would make it “substantially more difficult for student-athletes to receive legitimate compensation,” while athletes from the United College Athletes Association have said they favor collective bargaining as a way to settle key questions in college sports. One former college athlete argued in an op-ed that “players, coaches, schools and communities that made these sports great in the first place” should be the ones to make decisions about the future of college sports—not Washington. As the joint letter states, the fact that “the issue of conference alignment and media rights pooling have been among the most contentious, and also seems to involve student-athletes the least” is very telling: right now, Congress and the NCAA are negotiating over the distribution of the $19 billion in annual revenues the college athletes generate through hours of practices, competitions, travel, and hard work without allowing them a seat at the table. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the AFL-CIO Sports Council, a collaboration between labor unions that represent professional athletes, similarly reject the PCSA.
Congress should step aside from attempting to govern the minutiae of college athletes’ daily lives and lock in further advantages for powerful entities such as the NCAA. Schools don’t need to wait on Congress to act; if they chose to, they could negotiate with athletes to build a fair and equitable college athletics system tomorrow by voluntarily recognizing athletes as employees. The athletes whose hard work and dedication are the raw material for the enterprise beloved by millions of Americans should be fairly represented in the process as the workers they are.
Other CLASP publications on the exploitation of college athletes and related public policies include:
Washington, D.C., September 15, 2026—Today’s release of the U.S. Census Bureau’s national Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance data for 2025 may be the last year of positive impact, as the prior administration’s policy choices taper off. Despite this, enormous income inequality persists.
In 2025, median household income increased 2.6 percent, to $87,460. Median earnings for women also increased by 3.2 percent; they now make 84 percent of what their male counterparts are paid. And 92.1 percent of the U.S. population had health insurance for at least some part of last year.
While these numbers may not seem concerning, a closer look reveals troubling trends and worrying indicators for future years. The median income didn’t rise enough to cover today’s inflation; indeed, when accounting for the effect of inflation in 2026, median income only rose less than one percentage point.
When income doesn’t keep up with inflation, the individuals and families most affected are those earning the least amount of money. This demographic is also disproportionately affected by the many provisions in H.R.1, which passed in July 2025, and that will further jeopardize economic security. We will not see the true impact of these provisions until next year’s numbers are released and as elements of these policies take full effect, but an estimated 4.5 million people lost SNAP coverage between July 2025 and May 2026, including approximately 1.5 million children.
Today’s data also showed that nearly eight million people were pushed into poverty due to health expenses. With millions more expected to lose Medicaid coverage because of H.R.1, the number of people who enter poverty due to higher out-of-pocket health care costs will also increase in the coming years.
“Many of the policies enacted in July 2025 through H.R.1 are on a long fuse, with just some of the massive cuts taking effect last year and many more on tap in the coming years. This means that the numbers we see today will only get worse in the future, including for children, women, immigrants, and people of color. We’re especially concerned about immigrants whose ability to work and access care without fear of immigration enforcement has already severely impacted their daily lives and economic security,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy.
The persistent gender wage gap is also a nagging indicator. While that gap narrowed in 2025, likely due to the beneficial polices of the previous administration, women’s wages only moved closer to men’s by three cents. Such a slight increase will not move the needle on income inequality.
Overall, today’s data can be seen as setting the baseline for the harmful policies hardwired to play out in the coming years. And even at this baseline, we can see that people are not moving out of poverty—they are holding steady. While we are relieved that the news is not worse, we recognize that the affordability crisis and impending cuts to programs families rely on will increase income inequality, widen the wealth and gender wage gaps, and push more Americans into economic precarity and poverty.
“As the affordability crisis deepens, so does the country’s wealth gap. H.R.1’s tax cuts for the wealthy were largely funded by draconian cuts to programs that support people with lower incomes. As a result, we expect to see income inequality rise even more in the coming years, as income soars for the wealthy while working families will see lower incomes and continued challenges with affording the groceries, rent, and other things they need for to survive—and thrive,” said Chun-Hoon.
By
Excerpt:
The Center for Law and Social Policy describes a workplace landscape where racialized hostility, sexual harassment, and retaliation intersect with unequal power and economic insecurity. Research published by Harvard Business Review found that Black women are uniquely burdened by the “angry Black woman” stereotype, with expressions of frustration more readily interpreted as hostility or aggression, which can damage how colleagues view their competence and leadership potential.
By
Excerpt:
“Many of the policies enacted in July 2025 through H.R.1 are on a long fuse, with just some of the massive cuts taking effect last year and many more on tap in the coming years,” Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director of the left-leaning Center for Law and Social Policy, said in a statement, referring to the GOP package.
Sydney Ember and Margot Sanger-Katz
Excerpt:
“The people who are feeling the inflation impact are people who are lowest income,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, the president of the left-leaning Center for Law and Social Policy.
By Christian Collins
Ohio’s higher education system faces mounting pressure from federal funding cuts, long-term state disinvestment, restrictive state policies, and institutional mismanagement. Federal changes could make college less affordable, while Ohio continues to underinvest in public higher education. Senate Bill 1 further restricts DEI efforts, collective bargaining, and some academic programs, disproportionately affecting marginalized students and public-service career pathways. The brief calls for greater state investment, stronger basic-needs supports, protections against institutional misconduct, more meaningful student input, and full repeal of Senate Bill 1.
The following statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, D.C., August 19, 2026—On September 15, the U.S. Census Bureau will release reports with national data on Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance for 2025. While we anticipate a slight rise in poverty across the board compared to the data from 2024, we know that next month’s numbers will serve as a bellwether for what’s coming.
The changes wrought by H.R.1, signed into law by President Trump in July 2025, are already taking effect in communities across the country. For example, Congress let the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits expire last December when it passed H.R.1, pushing nearly three million people off their health insurance in early 2026. While the 2025 data don’t yet capture this drop in access to affordable health insurance for millions, we know that individuals and families are desperately struggling to pay for health care.
We should anticipate a rise in poverty for women, higher poverty for children of all races, and more poverty among immigrants, all driven by the many provisions in H.R.1 that are destabilizing families, such as the elimination of more than $200 billion in basic food assistance over the next decade. SNAP work requirements have also been tightened for elderly people and people with disabilities. Already, between October 2025 and February 2026, we’ve seen WIC participation decline by 250,000 people.
The administration’s relentless attacks on immigrants and their families will continue to have a chilling effect on access to the public benefit programs they are eligible for. This includes policymakers imposing significant eligibility restrictions on Medicaid, ACA, and SNAP for immigrants authorized to be in the U.S. In addition, immigration enforcement has created conditions in which workers lose wages and can fall into poverty if they stay home due to fear of ICE officers at workplaces.
While the administration and Congressional leaders have targeted immigrants in their slashing of social safety net programs, populations across the country are seeing their Medicaid, food assistance, and child care assistance gutted at the federal level in favor of funding military actions and aggressive immigration enforcement. We also know that last fall’s longest-ever government shutdown—a crisis manufactured by the White House and Congress—pushed countless people to the economic brink. Moreover, millions are living with the consequences of policy choices that have driven up inflation, driven down wages, and reduced funding for programs that meet basic needs. As a result, far too many people are taking on debt just to buy groceries and pay for the gas they need to commute to work.
We expect the September reports will show a wider gender pay gap and a rise in income inequality for Black households relative to white households. This phenomenon is largely driven by the disproportionate job losses experienced by Black women and the fact that it took Black women twice as long to find a job as white women in the second half of 2025. After attaining employment, Black women are paid less than their white peers, regardless of their educational level.
The Census reports will be much more than a look-back at the state of the country in 2025. Sadly, they will be a preview of the harm ahead for our communities because policymakers have chosen to enrich the wealthiest and finance a siege on immigrants over helping people meet their most basic, human needs. Poverty is the result of systemic failures, and our nation and the people who show up every day to make our economy work deserve better.
By Rachel Wilensky, Shira Small, and Stephanie Schmit
Beginning in the summer of 2025, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) engaged with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to support a workgroup of administrators of the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Child Care program. CalWORKs Child Care is a critical supportive service associated with California’s Welfare-to-Work program. It is funded by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) dollars and the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), as well as supplemental state funding.
Since 1997, CalWORKs Child Care has had three stages designed to provide care and to facilitate paths to self-sufficiency for CalWORKs participants. Stage One is currently administered by county welfare departments, and Stages Two and Three shift the family’s child care from county social service and welfare offices to Alternative Payment Programs (APPs), contracted organizations that administer child care vouchers.
The focus of the workgroup was to solicit feedback on factors that would be important for the state to understand when considering consolidation of the existing program. The administrator workgroup was established to enable CDSS and the State to learn from the expertise and experience of the counties and child care contractors to create a program that is more supportive for families and easier to administer—giving administrators more time to focus on the families they serve. The workgroup aimed to elicit insights and ideas using various feedback strategies, with the goal of informing a consolidation proposal for CDSS.
This report, drafted by CLASP, reviews the context for how the workgroup was initiated, outlines the feedback that was elicited in the workgroup, offers considerations and insights from CLASP based on the workgroup’s feedback, and documents the work materials from the group.
>Learn more information about the CalWORKS Child Child Consolidation Project.
Numerous and high-profile false narratives about immigrants’ reliance on public benefits, alleged fraud, and predisposition toward violent crime have enabled the Trump Administration and lawmakers to fund a mass immigrant detention agenda. Since January 2025, Congress and the administration have directed billions of dollars into recruiting more immigration agents, opening and staffing carceral facilities, and increasing the number of immigrant arrests and detentions.
The narratives used to support these actions and policies repackage the same stereotypes and tropes that have enabled divestment from, and the mass incarceration of, Black people in the U.S. As such, we can view these actions by the federal government, complicit local governments, and private corporations as a means to profit from fear and separation by boosting the population of individuals subject to the horrors of imprisonment and enslaved labor.
If the Trump Administration continues down their current path of targeting immigrants, private contractors stand to be among the principal beneficiaries, and the harms will ripple throughout families, communities, and the economy.
Economic Disruption and Forced Labor
Federal officials have called for arrest quotas to fill newly built detention centers, but not because there has been a sudden spike in crime. Indeed, the number of immigrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody with no criminal convictions has skyrocketed since January 2025. For the first time, this population outnumbers those who have convictions and pending charges. The vast majority of people who have been taken into ICE custody over the past 18 months face an alleged civil administrative violation, not a criminal charge.
More detainees means a larger captive labor force available for ICE’s “voluntary work program,” which supposedly offers opportunities for detainees to make money, stay out of trouble, and improve detention centers’ operations. However, labor programs within carceral facilities are inherently coercive, and reports indicate that immigrant ICE detainees are forced into intensive manual labor for as little as $0.13 an hour. This practice is aligned with the nation’s long history of economically exploiting incarcerated people.
While providing forced labor, immigrants lack many of the labor protections available to traditional employees and lack the resources to draw attention to the injustices they face. Detainees are also at risk of experiencing medical neglect, inadequate food, and overcrowded, filthy quarters. This abysmal situation has led to strikes at detention centers across the country.
Cracking down on immigrants is in direct opposition to Trump’s promise of a “golden age of America.” Ample research demonstrates that immigrants are less likely to commit crime; increase the size of the labor force and gross domestic production, which positively impacts the economy; and contribute more taxes than they receive in public benefits. But while immigrant workers are crucial to stabilizing the economy, increased enforcement is causing a decline in the labor market and will inevitably restrict local and national economies.
Taking a Page Out of the Mass Incarceration Playbook
What the Trump Administration and ICE are doing is not new. Increasing detention by targeting immigrant communities is part of a long history of unethically extracting profit from marginalized communities.
Recent narratives around immigrant fraud, inflated public benefit consumption, and criminality mobilized to justify the actions of ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Homeland Security mirror racist tropes about the “welfare queen,” inner-city violence, and inherent criminality of Black people. Those and other stereotypes were used to both legitimize restrictions on federal assistance programs that most affected working Black families and justify building the carceral infrastructure needed to fulfill “tough on crime” policy agendas. Even the images of immigrant parents being kidnapped and children getting pepper sprayed or tear gassed that have become common over the last year bear a striking resemblance to the media coverage that surrounds police killings of Black people.
To make matters worse, the Supreme Court has given law enforcement the green light to racially profile immigrants, thus enabling an environment of fear and risk that normalizes armed agents harassing people based on how they look and speak, what they are wearing, and where they work. Findings from a CLASP study on how current immigration operations have harmed immigrant families and early education and child care providers corroborate the implementation of an immigration enforcement model based on discrimination and anti-Blackness. The study included interviews with immigrants and providers who compared the environment of heightened discrimination, risk, and fear they were navigating to the racism and police violence experienced by Black people in the U.S.
Far-Reaching Consequences
The Trump Administration’s decision to greatly expand immigrant detention does more than remove immigrant workers from their jobs and families. It transfers public resources to the agencies and contractors that confine people while creating a captive population available to perform labor for nominal compensation. Consequently, immigrant communities bear the brunt of lost wages, family separation, care disruptions, and economic instability, while detention operators receive public resources and reduced operating costs.
These impacts have spread far beyond industries predominantly occupied by immigrants. As of May 2026, over 668,000 jobs have been lost as a result of the chilling effects generated by anti-immigrant activities. The human cost is high as well. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been disrupted and hundreds of families separated, at least 52 people have died in ICE custody since January 2025.
Investing in the destruction of immigrant communities is not a strategy for national safety nor economic security. Rather than financing a system that removes workers from local economies and their families and extracts value from them in custody, policymakers should invest in the conditions that allow families and communities to thrive, such as programs that help everyone afford the daily costs of living, like child care, nutrition assistance, and health care. Policies that support immigrants support us all.