Connect with us

Politics

Column: Trump has named a pro-union secretary of Labor, but will she be able to do anything for workers?

Published

on

Column: Trump has named a pro-union secretary of Labor, but will she be able to do anything for workers?

Dear readers: Hang on to your hats. I’m about to praise Donald Trump for one of his Cabinet nominees.

She’s Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), who will be the nominee for secretary of Labor.

Chavez-DeRemer has solid pro-labor credentials, a huge departure from the two men who served Trump as secretaries of Labor in his first term. She was one of only three Republicans in the House to vote in favor of the so-called PRO Act, which would significantly strengthen collective bargaining rights. (The measure passed the House in 2019 and 2021 but has been becalmed in committee during the current Congress.)

‘If Chavez-DeRemer commits as Labor secretary to strengthen labor unions and promote worker power, she’s a strong candidate for the job.’

— Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Advertisement

During her last electoral campaign she promoted herself as the daughter of a Teamsters union member; that might have been connected to her strong endorsement for the Cabinet post by Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, one of the very few major labor leaders who favored the Republicans during the presidential campaign, to the extent of speaking from the podium at the Republican National Convention in July.

Chavez-DeRemer is a one-term Republican member of Congress who lost her bid for reelection last month to Democrat Janelle Bynum. Her loss wasn’t much of a surprise: Her congressional district has been a solid Democratic stronghold for more than a decade, and she won election in 2022 by only two percentage points.

Labor activists and pro-labor politicians promptly announced support for Chavez-DeRemer after Trump announced her nomination on Nov. 22. Among those making positive noises about the nominee was the staunchly pro-labor Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Advertisement

“It’s a big deal that one of the few Republican lawmakers who have endorsed the PRO Act could lead the Department of Labor,” Warren said. “If Chavez-DeRemer commits as Labor secretary to strengthen labor unions and promote worker power, she’s a strong candidate for the job.”

Chavez-DeRemer received an explicit endorsement from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “Her record suggests real support of workers & their right to unionize,” Weingarten tweeted. “I hope it means the Trump admin will actually respect collective bargaining and workers’ voices from Teamsters to teachers.”

The labor-affiliated Economic Policy Institute also offered encouraging words, citing Chavez-DeRemer’s support for the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which would protect organizing and collective bargaining rights for government employees.

“While Congresswoman Chavez-DeRemer’s support for these needed reforms is encouraging,” EPI general counsel Celine McNicholas wrote, “if confirmed, she will be Secretary of Labor for a president who steadfastly pursued an ambitious anti-worker agenda during his first term in office.”

Another indicator of Chavez-DeRemer’s pro-labor outlook is the bilious reaction from anti-labor conservatives and Republicans to her nomination. Much of that opposition has been focused on her support of the PRO Act. Among other provisions, the act would override state right-to-work laws, racist and anti-union statutes that are common in southeastern and heartland states.

Advertisement

“In this woman’s America, every worker would have to have a boss and pay the union for the privilege of working,” said Grover Norquist, the right-wing anti-tax warrior. The New York Post, a mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch, quoted an anonymous GOP insider labeling Chavez-DeRemer “toxic for so many Republicans.”

Indeed, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) tweeted that he would “need to get a better understanding of her support for Democrat legislation in Congress that would strip Louisiana’s ability to be a right to work state.”

As McNicholas observed, the chief challenge for Chavez-DeRemer if she’s confirmed may be navigating the shoals of an anti-labor Trump administration. During his first term, he turned the Department of Labor into something that more resembled a Department of Employer Rights.

That was especially true under his second Labor secretary, Eugene Scalia —the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had made a career as a lawyer for big corporations resisting labor regulations. (Scalia succeeded Alex Acosta, who resigned as Labor secretary when a furor arose over the solicitous plea deal he had reached with child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in 2008 when he was a U.S. attorney in Florida.)

Trump pursued what economics commentator Pedro Nicolaci da Costa called “the most hostile anti-labor agenda of any modern president” in 2019. He overturned an Obama administration rule on overtime pay that eliminated overtime protection for an estimated 8.2 million workers. The Biden administration tried to restore much of that protection, but its effort was blocked by a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas.

Advertisement

Through changes to the National Labor Relations Board, Trump reversed the board’s trend toward expanding the definition of “joint employer,” which would have made big franchisers such as McDonald’s jointly liable with their franchisees for violations of employees’ wage and hour rights. He rescinded the Obama-era “persuader” rule, which required employers to disclose their relationships with union-busting law firms.

Amazingly, Trump’s Labor Department fought legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour from its woefully outdated $7.25. (The federal minimum wage is still mired at $7.25.)

Among the challenges facing Chavez-DeRemer would be a tough comparison with the labor policies of the Biden administration, who has been the most pro-labor president in decades, possibly ever. In an unprecedented move, Biden walked a United Auto Workers picket line in 2023 while the union was negotiating what became a landmark contract with major automakers.

Trump had tried to counter Biden’s appearance by staging a rally at a nonunion auto parts factory, but it was shortly revealed that some of the workers brandishing signs reading “union members for Trump” and “auto workers for Trump” weren’t actually union members or auto workers.

Promptly after taking office, Biden swept a gang of union-busting Trump appointees out of an important federal labor relations agency — the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which rules on disputes between labor and management involving government union contracts. Trump had stacked the 10-member panel with professional union busters and anti-union ideologues, including corporate lawyers and officials from Koch network-funded right-wing organizations. Eight of the 10 resigned under pressure; Biden fired the two holdouts.

Advertisement

The Democratic majorities Biden assembled at the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission drafted and implemented pro-worker policies. The Labor Department revived enforcement of overtime and worker safety laws, which had grown cobwebs under Trump.

Biden didn’t get everything he wanted on the labor front. The Federal Trade Commission, headed by Biden appointee Lina Khan, crafted a rule to ban noncompete clauses in employment contracts, which tend to suppress wages and innovation, but the rule was blocked by another Trump-appointed federal judge this summer just days before it was scheduled to take effect.

The Senate confirmations of two superbly qualified Biden nominees for top posts at the Labor Department were blocked by a Big Business cabal allied with not only Republicans but supine Democrats including Sens. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. (Manchin and Sinema subsequently changed their party affiliations from Democratic to independent, but continued to caucus with the Democrats. Neither will be in the Senate after their current terms end this year.)

Ferocious opposition from business interests forced David Weil, an expert in labor law and all the ways employers cheat their workers of wages, to withdraw his name from consideration as head of the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division in 2022.

The same cabal denied confirmation of Julie Su, a stalwart and exceptionally effective advocate for worker rights throughout a professional career that included service as California Labor Commissioner, as successor to Biden’s first Labor secretary, Marty Walsh. Su has been serving as acting secretary since Walsh’s departure in February 2023.

Advertisement

Many Biden administration policies are likely to be rolled back in the new administration, just as Trump in his first term rolled back Obama’s pro-labor policies. These efforts will be test cases for Chavez-DeRemer’s independence from the worst instincts of her boss and his inner circle.

EPI’s McNicholas points to several issues that worker and union advocates will be watching closely. Will she fight to defend the Biden administration’s expansion of overtime eligibility? The Trump administration could act to challenge the court ruling that blocked the expansion, or let it ride. Will she act to preserve the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s new standard requiring employers to protect workers from heat-related injuries?

Will she fight any effort to reimplement a Trump-era program that gave employers a free pass if they confessed when accused of wage theft, in which case penalties and damage assessments were waived?

“Chavez-DeRemer should make it harder for employers to steal workers’ wages,” McNicholas argued, “not easier.”

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending