SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
April, 27 2017, 02:15pm EDT
Contact:
Phone: (202) 775-8810
Trump's First 100 Days are Marred by an Aggressive Anti-Worker Agenda
In a new report, EPI experts examine President Trump's actions in his first 100 days analyzes their impact on the nation's working people and on our economy.
The first 100 days outlines how President Trump has rolled back worker protections, proposed a budget that would dramatically cut funding for the agencies that safeguard workers' rights, wages, and safety, and advanced nominees to key posts who are hostile to policies that boost wages, enhance workers' bargaining power, and protect worker safety.
"In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has continued to talk about creating 'jobs where Americans prosper and grow.' However, his actions during that time tell a different story," said Celine McNicholas of EPI's Perkins Project on Worker Rights and Wages. "Working Americans deserve more than talk. If the president were serious about improving the lives of working men and women, he could strengthen overtime rules, work to increase the minimum wage, and support workers' rights to bargain collectively. Instead he has steadily undermined the laws and institutions that protect working people and advance their interests."
Key actions taken in Trump's first 100 days include:
- Ensuring retirement savers will lose billions of dollars by delaying the "fiduciary rule" (day 15)
- Putting workers at risk by delaying rules limiting their exposure to beryllium (day 41) and silica dust (day 77)
- Rewarding federal contractors who violate labor and employment laws with the rollback of an Obama-era executive order (day 67)
- Advancing two labor secretary nominees and a Supreme Court nominee who are hostile to workers' rights and protections
EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI's research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.
(202) 775-8810LATEST NEWS
'Dangerous Power Grab' as Supreme Court Sides With DOGE on Social Security Data
"This action by six far-right justices is an affront to every principle of government transparency and the rule of law."
Jun 07, 2025
Defenders of Social Security are responding with critical anger to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday that side with the Trump administration in a legal battle over access to sensitive data of tens of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency, the government-eviscerating agency first spearheaded by right-wing libertarian and mega-billionaire Elon Musk.
The unsigned emergency order from the court came in response to an emergency application from the Trump administration defending DOGE's ability to have access to Social Security databases that two labor unions, alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans, had file a legal suit to protect. By its ruling, the Supreme Court stayed a lower federal court's ruling that said DOGE must "disgorge" and "delete" any of the data it accessed or downloaded from the agency files.
While the underlying case plays out, DOGE is now authorized to retain the data and access to the information, which critics say cannot be entrusted to the newly-created department and unvetted personnel who control it.
"This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," said the coalition behind the challenge in response to the decision. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward."
"If Americans' personal Social Security data is misused or abused by this administration, the Supreme Court's majority will have been fully complicit."
While the majority ruling was unsigned, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elana Kagan backed what was described as a "blistering" dissent, authored by Jackson, countering the determination and warning against continued access for DOGE while the case makes its way through the lower courts.
"On the one hand, there is a repository of millions of Americans' legally protected, highly sensitive information that—if improperly handled or disseminated—risks causing significant harm," she wrote. "On the other, there is the government's desire to ditch the usual protocols for accessing that data, before the courts have even determined whether DOGE's access is lawful."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, called the majority's ruling "extremely troubling" for a host of reasons.
"We echo the concerns of the minority, as articulated by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that the decision creates 'grave privacy risks' by giving DOGE 'unfettered data access — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards,'" said Richtman. "It is hard to justify the court's action, especially in light of the incompetent, reckless manner in which DOGE has already interfered with the operations of the Social Security Administration, prompting a spike in new Social Security claims by older people who fear the situation will only get worse."
Devon Ombres, senior director for Courts and Legal Policy at the center-left Center for American Progress, echoed those concerns.
"This action by six far-right justices is an affront to every principle of government transparency and the rule of law. DOGE has shown no need to review every American’s personal information, and the high court provides no explanation in granting it access," said Ombres. "Americans have no way to know how DOGE will use or misuse this information, nor what DOGE is or what it is doing. Shame on the court for rubber-stamping this administration’s lawlessness and further undermining the public’s trust in government, which President Trump has eroded."
Citing Musk, who recently left his position at DOGE and has been engaged in a high-profile spat with President Donald Trump in recent days, Richtman said the Tesla and SpaceX founder and world's richest man cannot be trusted, giving the lies he told about Social Security fraud that "undermined people's faith in the system."
"This hardly inspires confidence that DOGE has either the sense of ethics or public service to be entrusted with Americans' private data, leading us to believe that the court simply is abetting another dangerous power grab by the Executive branch," said Richtman. "If Americans' personal Social Security data is misused or abused by this administration, the Supreme Court's majority will have been fully complicit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Professors Express Outrage Over UMich's Use of Investigators to Surveil Gaza Student Protestors
"My university has no business doing this," wrote one professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
Jun 06, 2025
Multiple professors expressed outrage on Friday in response to reporting from The Guardian, which found that the University of Michigan is making use of undercover investigators to keep tabs on pro-Palestinian groups on campus.
"My university has no business doing this. I love the University of Michigan, and this is not how we should operate," said University of Michigan Law School professor Sam Bagenstos, writing from his personal Bluesky account.
The Guardian spoke to several unnamed students who said that they have been followed, recorded, or eavesdropped on private investigators. Students who spoke to the outlet tracked dozens of investigators who have trailed them around campus.
Students say they have confronted the investigators, and one student captured on video multiple interactions with a man who the student says has been following him. In one video, the man falsely accuses the student of attempting to rob him, and in another the man appears to fake being disabled.
When contacted by the outlet, the University of Michigan did not deny the surveillance, which The Guardian reported appears to be largely an intimidation tactic. The school said it had not received any complaints about the investigators.
"Any security measures in place are solely focused on maintaining a safe and secure campus environment and are never directed at individuals or groups based on their beliefs or affiliations," a spokesperson for the school said in an email.
One student who says she's been regularly followed is Katrina Keating, a student who is a part of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, which is a local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. Keating told The Guardian that the surveillance has made her feel "on edge." Keating said she was first followed in November.
According to The Guardian, the investigators appear to work for the private security group City Shield. The university's governing body, the board of regents, paid at least $800,000 to City Shield's parent company from June 2023 to September 2024.
"Disgusting. University of Michigan pays around $800,000 to a private security firm to surveil pro-Palestinian students," wrote Marc Owen Jones, an associate professor at Northwestern University in Qatar.
Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School, wrote: "Outrageous. This is a public university."
Chris Geraldi, a journalist with New York Focus, wrote that "every paragraph of this story is bonkers."
In April, with the blessing of Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, law enforcement officers raided the homes of multiple student organizers connected to Palestine solidarity protests at the University of Michigan.
Students who spoke to The Guardian said the surveillance has increased in the wake of those raids.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rubio, Trump Accused of Criminal Obstruction for Sanctioning ICC Judges
"Sanctioning ICC judges for doing their work on behalf of justice is a flagrant attack on the rule of law," said one critic.
Jun 06, 2025
Human rights defenders on Friday accused U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of criminal obstruction after Rubio announced sanctions targeting four International Criminal Court judges who authorized an investigation into torture allegations against American troops in Afghanistan and arrest warrants for fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Rubio sanctioned International Criminal Court Judges Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, and Beti Hohler of Slovenia "pursuant to President Trump's Executive Order 14203." The order was issued in February and sanctioned ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan and accused the Hague-based tribunal of "baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel."
"Have Marco Rubio's State Department lawyers read him Article 70 of the Rome Statute on obstruction of justice?"
"These four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel," Rubio added. "The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies."
Two of the sanctioned judges authorized a probe of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. The other two green-lighted warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including weaponized starvation and the murder of Palestinians—at least 54,607 of whom have been killed since Israel began its assault and siege of Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
The ICC's Assembly of State Parties—the court's governing body—said in a statement Friday that the U.S. sanctions are a "regrettable" effort to "impede the court and its personnel in the exercise of their independent judicial functions.
Kenneth Roth, a professor at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and former director of Human Rights Watch, on Friday accused Trump and Rubio of "obstructing justice under Article 70 of the Rome Statute," the treaty establishing and governing the ICC.
Christoph Safferling, director of the International Nuremberg Principles Academy—a Germany-based foundation "dedicated to the advancement of international criminal law and related human rights"— said Friday that 80 years after the the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, "obstructing the ICC is an affront to the commitment to justice and the rule of law."
"The court carries forward this legacy and calls for our steadfast support in the fight against impunity," Safferling added.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk
said Friday that he was "profoundly disturbed" by the U.S. sanctions.
"Attacks against judges for performance of their judicial functions, at national or international levels, run directly counter to respect for the rule of law and the equal protection of the law—values for which the U.S. has long stood," Türk added.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the European Union "deeply regrets" the Trump administration's move.
Slovenia's Foreign Ministry said that "Slovenia regrets the announced sanctions by the U.S. government against four judges of the International Criminal Court, including a judge from Slovenia," and "rejects pressure on judicial institutions and influence on judicial operations."
"Courts must act in the interests of law and justice," the ministry continued. "In the current situation we will support the judge, who is a Slovenian citizen in carrying out her mandate." Due to the inclusion of an E.U. member state on the sanctions list, Slovenia will propose the immediate activation of the blocking act."
The E.U.'s blocking statute is meant to protect businesses in the 27-nation bloc from adverse consequences of foreign—particularly U.S.—sanctions.
During the first Trump administration, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sanctioned then-ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and Prosecution Jurisdiction Division Director Phakiso Mochochoko for investigating U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. This, even after the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II announced it would not grant a request by Bensouda to open an investigation into the alleged torture of prisoners held in U.S. military and secret CIA prisons in Afghanistan, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania.
In 2021, Khan angered human rights defenders by announcing he was seeking approval to resume an investigation into potential war crimes in Afghanistan committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State—but would exclude alleged crimes perpetrated by U.S. forces.
U.S. and Israeli officials often note that neither country is a party to the Rome Statute. However, the court has affirmedr its jurisdiction "in relation to crimes committed on the territory of Palestine, including Gaza," as well as "over crimes committed by Palestinian nationals inside or outside Palestinian territory."
Responding to the U.S. sanctions, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said Friday that "this is an attack against international justice and the fight against impunity."
"Governments who believe in a rule-based order must take all necessary measures to protect the four judges against the impact of the sanctions," she continued. "They must assure the ICC of their full support. They must voice their commitment to the independence and impartiality of the ICC clearly and loudly. They must implement all arrest warrants and support the ICC in all its investigations."
"International justice is a battleground. It has been so from the very beginning," Callamard added. "Victims know so all too well. We will keep fighting and resisting all attempts to derail, undermine, destroy the search for justice and the rule of law."
In April, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in a Maine federal court on behalf of Matthew Smith, co-founder of the human rights group Fortify Rights, and international lawyer Akila Radhakrishnan arguing that Trump's sanctions against Khan violate their First Amendment rights.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular