By Lulit Shewan
May Day has always been grounded in a simple demand: workers should be able to go to work and return home safely. That demand carries particular weight this year. The scale of harm workers face remains high, and the conditions shaping that harm are shifting in ways that increase exposure and limit the systems meant to prevent it.
Risk is structured and disproportionate across the labor market. Latino workers experience the highest rates of fatal occupational injury, and Black workers also face elevated risks. Immigrant workers are overrepresented in industries with dangerous conditions, including construction, agriculture, warehousing, and manufacturing. Many workers in these sectors face barriers to reporting unsafe conditions, including language access, fear of retaliation, and immigration-related concerns. These factors shape who is most exposed to hazardous conditions and who is least protected when those conditions become dangerous.
Workplace harm is not limited to injuries or fatalities. Gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) are deeply embedded across low-wage and precarious work, shaping daily conditions of safety, dignity, and economic security. This includes sectors such as hospitality, domestic work, agriculture, and warehousing. Women—particularly Black women, immigrant women, and women in temporary roles—face heightened exposure to harassment, assault, and coercion on the job. Federal workplace safety frameworks provide limited proactive protections against these forms of harm. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not offer a comprehensive standard that addresses GBVH as a workplace safety issue, and enforcement mechanisms remain limited. These gaps leave workers without consistent tools for prevention or accountability.
The most recent AFL-CIO Death on the Job report documents the scale of loss. In 2024, 5,070 workers were killed in traumatic incidents on the job, and an estimated 135,000 more died from occupational diseases. This amounts to more than 380 deaths each day tied to workplace conditions. These figures align with patterns documented in prior years. Fatalities remain concentrated in construction, transportation, warehousing, agriculture, and manufacturing. The leading causes of death continue to include falls, motion strain, equipment-related injuries, and exposure to hazardous substances.
Safety standards exist for many of the most common hazards, particularly in construction and manufacturing, but failures in enforcement, inadequate training, production pressures, and gaps in accountability allow these risks to persist. These failures are tied to how safety protections are implemented and enforced across workplaces.
Recent workplace tragedies reflect these patterns. In April 2026, a worker at an Amazon fulfillment center in Troutdale, Oregon, collapsed and died inside the facility. Reports indicated that work continued in surrounding areas during the emergency response. In October 2025, an explosion at an explosives manufacturing plant in Tennessee killed 16 workers and revealed dozens of safety violations. Construction sites continue to see fatal trench collapses and falls, even with established federal standards designed to prevent them. These incidents reflect conditions in which known hazards remain present and safeguards are inconsistently applied. A large share of these deaths are widely understood to be preventable, even if there is no single comprehensive estimate that captures the exact proportion. The AFL-CIO has consistently pointed to enforcement gaps and employer noncompliance as central drivers of workplace fatalities, noting that many incidents occur in violation of existing standards. OSHA investigations routinely identify preventable hazards after fatal events, particularly in blue collar industries.
Policy decisions made over the past year are shaping how these risks are managed. OSHA’s recent revised Heat National Emphasis Program is reflective of this, narrowing the list of industries prioritized for heat-related inspections. This change comes as heat exposure intensifies across sectors where workers spend extended periods outdoors or in high-temperature environments, including those who work in agriculture, construction, delivery, or warehouses. These workers all face prolonged exposure to high temperatures, often without guaranteed access to water or shade. Federal data shows that heat-related fatalities are often undercounted or misclassified. A narrower enforcement scope reduces the likelihood that unsafe heat conditions will be identified during inspections.
Cuts to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) affect the federal government’s ability to track workplace hazards and develop updated safety recommendations. NIOSH plays a central role in identifying emerging risks, including heat exposure, chemical hazards, and evolving workplace technologies. Staffing and funding reductions affect data collection, field investigations, and the development of evidence-based guidance that informs OSHA standards.
Enforcement capacity continues to shape how safety protections function in practice. OSHA is responsible for overseeing millions of workplaces with a limited number of inspectors; indeed, inspection rates have not kept pace with the growth and complexity of industries such as warehousing and logistics. These sectors include large facilities employing hundreds or thousands of workers under tightly managed production systems. The number of federal OSHA inspectors dropped from 900 in 2022 to 853 in 2023, while the number of workers and workplaces under OSHA’s jurisdiction continues to grow. Current staffing remains below historical levels relative to the size of the workforce OSHA is tasked with protecting.
Employer practices play a defining role in this context. Production targets, algorithmic management systems, and staffing decisions influence how safety measures are applied. In warehouse settings, workers are often expected to maintain continuous output, which affects whether work is paused during emergencies and whether workers feel able to report unsafe conditions. In construction, subcontracting structures distribute responsibility across multiple entities, which complicates enforcement. In manufacturing, pressure to maintain production intersects with hazardous materials and machinery.
The cumulative effect is a workplace safety system with limited capacity to prevent harm under current conditions. Oversight is narrowing, research capacity is constrained, and enforcement remains limited relative to the scale of workplaces. Forms of harm that fall outside traditional regulatory frameworks, including GBVH, continue without consistent intervention.
Addressing these conditions requires sustained federal action. Expanding OSHA funding would increase inspection capacity and strengthen enforcement of existing standards. Reinvesting in NIOSH would support the research infrastructure needed to identify emerging hazards and inform updated protections. Establishing a comprehensive federal heat standard would provide consistent safeguards across industries where exposure is widespread. Legislative action can clarify accountability within subcontracting structures and strengthen protections for workers who report unsafe conditions. Addressing GBVH at work requires integrating it into workplace safety frameworks through enforceable standards and proactive prevention measures.
May Day highlights the relationship between worker safety and power. Workplace conditions are shaped by policy choices, enforcement priorities, and the distribution of control within workplaces. Current policy directions influence how hazards are identified, protections are applied, and accountability is enforced. Worker deaths and injuries continue to follow patterns that have been documented over time. The systems designed to address those patterns are being shaped in ways that affect how widely harm continues.
By Wendy Cervantes
For over a decade, ICE’s parental interest directive has served as an important tool to ensure that parents impacted by ICE enforcement actions are able to make decisions about their children’s care. First implemented following significant advocacy from racial justice, children, and immigrant rights groups in 2013, the policy is intended to ensure that ICE’s enforcement actions do not unnecessarily infringe upon the legal parental or guardianship rights of individuals facing detention and deportation. In July 2025, Trump’s ICE issued a new “detained parent directive,” replacing the policy with similar but ultimately weaker protections for families.
In response to Trump’s weakening of parental protections, Congress must act to protect children and mitigate the harms of interior enforcement. The HELP Separated Children Act would help do that.
By Parker Gilkesson Davis
The Farm Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress considers in terms of agriculture and food. It determines funding for programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps millions of families afford groceries each month.
If you’re less familiar with what the Farm Bill does and why it matters, we break it down in this 2023 Farm Bill video.
The Farm Bill was originally set to be reauthorized in 2023, but Congress was unable to reach agreement and instead extended the existing bill. Now, after months of delay and ongoing negotiations, Congress is preparing to make a decision that will directly impact whether millions of families can afford to eat.
As written, the current Farm Bill proposal would codify harmful SNAP cuts, enacted through H.R. 1, that have already made it more difficult for families across the country to buy food. Since those changes took effect last September, over 2.5 million people have lost SNAP benefits; in states like Arizona, participation has dropped by 47 percent.
This proposal bakes in the harm caused by H.R. 1. As written, it would further codify those SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements that are already putting veterans, foster youth aging out of care, older adults, and others at risk of losing their benefits entirely. Critically, the bill also fails to address or even slow the cost shift to states, which will place significant financial and administrative strain on state agencies and further destabilize access to benefits. At a minimum, Congress should use the Farm Bill to halt or delay these cost shifts and begin reversing the damage that’s already been done.
SNAP is the nation’s most effective anti-hunger program, reducing poverty, improving physical and mental health outcomes, and supporting local economies. At a time when families are already struggling with high food costs, Congress should be strengthening this program, not deepening cuts and widening inequities in food access.
Members of Congress have a choice. They can vote “yes” and continue down a path that takes food away from families. Or they can vote “no” and take meaningful steps to reverse the harmful changes from H.R. 1 and, at a minimum, slow or halt cost shifts that will only destabilize families further. Congress must vote no on this Farm Bill and proactively move forward with solutions that actually put food back on the table.
People are not less hungry, and there is not less of a need for assistance. Rather, people are being pushed out of the program. This is what it looks like when policy fails to meet people’s needs. The Farm Bill doesn’t have to be simply a piece of legislation. It can be a commitment to ensuring food is restored to tables.
By Ashley Burnside and Jesse Fairbanks
Michael and Susan Dell recently announced a $6.25 billion donation to the new “Trump Accounts” for children up to age 10 living in zip codes with median incomes of under $150,000. Media outlets have heralded the Dell family’s generosity, but this donation—and Trump Accounts generally—won’t end wealth inequality for families with low incomes.
Trump Accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts seeded with $1,000 from the federal government for babies born between 2025 and 2028. Families are eligible regardless of their income, but children must have a Social Security number. Families or employers can invest up to $5,000 per year, and government entities and nonprofits can make additional contributions. At eighteen, the child can make withdrawals for expenses like college tuition or a down payment on a house. Unlike 529 savings accounts, money from Trump Accounts is taxable, as are contributions.
This policy sounds promising because it symbolizes an investment in America’s children. However, Trump Accounts effectively make the rich richer and widen wealth gaps.
Apart from the initial $1,000, the federal government makes no additional contributions to the accounts. Families with low-wage jobs will be less likely to work for an employer that offers up to $2,500 in annual contributions because these employers generally offer fewer benefits. These families may also struggle to invest in the accounts personally, while higher-income families—or their relatives such as grandparents with generational wealth—can take advantage of this option.
When children turn 18, families who contributed the annual maximum could have an account of more than $190,000, while children who only received the initial $1,000 could have an account as low as $4,000. Young adults with the means to leave the account untouched because of other savings can allow their Trump Account to mature as a traditional individual retirement account, furthering the wealth divide. These children could turn $190,000 in their Trump Account into an estimated $4.8 million by the time they’re 60.
The Dells’ contribution is income-targeted geographically, in that only children living in counties with a median income below $150,000 will receive the $250. Their donation will miss families with low incomes who live in wealthy areas. Furthermore, without additional investment, the small contribution of $250 could grow to just $450-$900 depending on the child’s age. That’s not generational wealth. Future donors could better target their donations by setting a lower qualifying median income threshold to provide a larger one-time contribution.
Trump Accounts are not designed to help families with low incomes build wealth. The accounts don’t allow philanthropic and government donors to income-target by picking recipients based on family income. Thus, donors like the Dell family who are dedicated to narrowing wealth gaps must use imperfect geographic measures to target their contributions. The Dell’s donation could have better served children without wealth if federal guidance allowed them to provide a greater one-time investment to families with extremely low incomes. Federal guidance could also allow contributions to certain populations that face economic barriers, such as foster youth.
Connecticut’s state baby bond program is a promising example of income-targeting. Babies there born on or after July 1, 2023, and eligible for Medicaid are automatically enrolled in a state-managed trust fund that’s seeded up to $3,200. Because a child must receive Medicaid to be eligible, the program is income-targeted. State officials estimate over 15,000 children are enrolled annually and set up to receive $11,000 to $24,000 as young adults.
Trump Accounts aren’t baby bonds because their goals differ. Baby bonds aspire to reduce wealth gaps, especially between white and Black people living in the U.S., by seeding more money into the accounts of children from families experiencing poverty. Through Trump Accounts, conservative policymakers aim to invest in “a new generation of capitalists” without regard for how the current design might worsen wealth gaps.
It’s promising to see a national, bipartisan conversation about promoting wealth-building for children, but Trump Accounts fail too many children. By design, the Trump Administration has limited the ability of private and public donors to target their investments by family income. Donors committed to closing wealth gaps should instead consider investing in state and local initiatives with positive outcomes for children that allow for precise income-targeting, such as New Mexico’s baby bonds program or local guaranteed income pilots. To create a country where all children have generational wealth, lawmakers and donors need to invest in cash programs that effectively target families based on income and wealth.
In a podcast produced and hosted by First Focus on Children, Wendy Cervantes joins in an episode called, “Wendy Cervantes Demands Better Protections for Immigrant Kids.” She discusse how immigration enforcement policies are affecting children in immigrant families, with a focus on the fear, instability, and the lasting impact these policies can have on children’s development and well-being. She also talked about the broader effects on schools, communities, and family life, and why stronger protections are needed to keep children safe and supported. Watch or listen as she joined First Focus on Children’s podcast to dive deep on these issues.
By Christian Collins, Teon Hayes, Kaelin Rapport
2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the United States, and this February brings the 10oth anniversary of Black History Month. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History, which founded Black History Month, calls us to celebrate Black history across the African Diaspora and how that history is tied to Black people’s current material conditions. Those conditions have become more precarious as the Trump Administration enacts its agenda to”Make American Great Again.”
Considering these two anniversaries, we should ask ourselves what great means, and great for whom? In the first year of Trump’s second term, his administration has enacted explicitly discriminatory policies reversing the progress made by civil rights leaders and activists in the struggle for equity. These actions disproportionately harm Black communities and destroy measures implemented to right historical wrongs.
Acknowledging the past through reparations is a necessary step toward building a future where the white supremacy undergirding the MAGA movement is stamped out. While there has been abundant research on racial inequality, more direct examination on how best to address harm and evaluate the impact of existing reparative policies and programs is needed. We can learn from those that have gotten off the ground so that all communities, especially ones still dealing with the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow, can thrive.
By Jesse Fairbanks
Everyone deserves a safe, affordable home. Our federal government protects people from housing instability through its rental assistance programs that help more than 10 million people, including 3.2 million children, keep a roof over their heads.
The Trump Administration is drafting a rule that, reportedly, would allow more providers of rental assistance and other HUD-assisted housing to add work requirements and/or time limits to their programs. Under the draft rule, housing providers could:
Implementing strict time limits or work requirements in rental assistance programs will put as many as 3 million people at risk of losing their homes without increasing employment opportunities or economic mobility. People who are able to work but lack reliable shelter struggle to find and maintain a job, care for loved ones, and develop their skills. Federal, state, and local policymakers must reject harmful policies like work requirements and time limits, which would ultimately deprive low income and working families of critically necessary housing stability.
You can learn more about what this proposal could mean for HUD-assisted housing programs and the communities who need them to thrive in this fact sheet written with national partners like the National Housing Law Project, Justice in Aging, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and Southern Poverty Law Center.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
January 26, 2026, Washington, D.C. – Over the weekend, immigration enforcement agents killed another U.S. citizen, 37-year-old Alex Pretti. This is just weeks after the murder of Renee Good, and dozens of other violent actions that have harmed immigrants and U.S. citizens alike. The Senate will consider a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget this week that increases funding for immigration enforcement and will lead to more children and families being needlessly victimized. Members of Congress must reject any legislation that further empowers the administration to continue its attacks against families across the country.
Trump Administration officials have made clear since day one of their second term that they intended to go after children, families, and workers. Children are bearing the brunt of this hateful agenda. In just the first few weeks of this year, a five-year-old was used as bait after immigration enforcement agents followed him and his father home from school and arrested his father near their home; several children, including a six-month-old, were hospitalized after their car was tear-gassed on their way home; a 17-year-old was violently assaulted at work, abducted, and then thrown out in a parking lot miles away; and a seven-year-old and her parents were abducted in front of a hospital where they went to seek emergency care for her.
CLASP, along with other children’s advocates from the Children Thrive Action Network, have called on Congress to reject any increased funding for immigration enforcement that kidnaps entire families and traumatizes children. The devastating harms already inflicted on children and families across the country aren’t reversible, but additional harms are absolutely preventable. It is up to Congress to stand with communities and stop this administration’s crusade of violence.
Let us be clear. There is no acceptable amount of funding in this legislation for body cameras or oversight language that justifies increased or level funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). The historic funding increases for these agencies included in H.R.1 have allowed the administration to rapidly onboard agents and turbocharge deportation efforts. The video recordings of these agents violently attacking and killing people and breaking the law make it abundantly clear that body cameras are doing little to deter agents from using violence, nor are they leading to meaningful consequences or changes to unlawful protocols. We have enacted laws, policies, and guidance that are supposed to prevent these abuses; yet the Trump Administration is actively disregarding them. Therefore, the Senate must not pass a budget that increases funding for ICE and CBP. Doing so would empower this administration to continue to terrorize our communities.
As an organization that’s been working for more than 50 years to advance policies that allow all children and families to thrive, we call on Congress and state and local officials to hold this administration accountable and protect our communities from further harm.
By Shira Small, Rachel Wilensky, and Stephanie Schmit
Updated January 23, 2026
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration has repeatedly undermined families’ access to child care and early education—disproportionately harming families with low incomes and families of color—by forcing Head Start closures; sowing fear and uncertainty among children and families, particularly immigrants; and weakening the federal agencies that support early childhood programs. CLASP’s new fact sheet documents these actions, outlines efforts to defend critical programs, and makes clear the urgent need to protect providers, children, and families from further harm.
CLASP’s new timeline, “The First Year of Trump’s Second Term: Harms to Children, Families, and Workers,” provides a clear illustration of just some of the ways that President Trump and his administration have targeted and harmed families, children, immigrants, communities of color, women, and people with low incomes.
This timeline highlights a number of specific actions and executive orders taken in the areas of immigration, child care, early education, higher education, workers’ rights, and public benefits during the first year of Trump’s second term. In its totality, this document shows that children, families, students, and workers are worse off after a year of the Trump Administration’s consistent attacks on people’s rights and access to support. This timeline is not intended to be a comprehensive list. While this document focuses on the administration’s actions, it’s important to note that those actions have emboldened hostility by individuals, states, and localities to families, immigrants, Black and brown communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other communities. It also offers important reminders of actions Trump attempted to take that, as of now, have not come to pass–including his effort to revoke birthright citizenship.
Finally, the timeline presents an overview of some responsive actions taken by communities, policymakers, and courts to withstand and counter the administration’s constant attacks on children, families, and workers; and suggests ways for individuals and communities to fight back against these attacks. In order to define our path forward, we need to understand what we’re fighting against. It is our intention that this timeline will demonstrate what the Trump Administration has done so far as we prepare for continued and new threats.