Sign in

Our Revolution Media

@ourrevolution.media
127 followers 141 following 21 posts

Independent. Unbought. Unfiltered. Labor history & working-class media from LA. No sponsors, no PR. press@ourrevolution.media || ourrevolution.media

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 07/09/2026
The Board regained its quorum in January. In June the Supreme Court removed the tenure protection that quorum sits under, same three chairs, one story about what lapses when a quorum lapses.
ourrevolution.media
The Quorum Came Back in January. The Court Took the Lock Off in June.
The National Labor Relations Board regained a quorum on 7 January 2026, when James Murphy and Scott Mayer were sworn in. The agency's own announcement put it plainly: as a result, the Board now has a quorum to conduct Agency business. Five months and twenty two days later, everything changed again. The Supreme Court decided Trump v. Slaughter, overruled Humphrey's Executor, and held that tenure protection for members of independent boards is no longer a constitutional bar to removal. Most coverage treated January as a restoration and June as a separate story about presidential power. Read together, they are one story about the same three chairs. It is a Labor Day story, not an administrative law one. The thing that lapses when a quorum lapses is not the agency's convenience. It is the certification a group of workers spent a year winning. ## THE GAP ### Four Chairs Filled, One Empty, and No Floor Under Any of Them The Board's own page today lists four members, Chairman James R. Murphy, David M. Prouty, Scott A. Mayer and James R. Macy, against a statutory complement of five. Four is a working quorum. Four is also one departure away from three, and three is the statutory floor exactly. There is no margin at all. Before 29 June 2026, that margin did not need to exist, because a member who did not wish to leave could not be made to. Trump v. Slaughter removed that. The decision was 6 to 3, Roberts writing, Sotomayor dissenting with Kagan and Jackson. What it changed for this Board is narrow and total. The number of members is now a function of how many the President wishes to keep. A quorum is a thing held at will, not a thing secured by tenure. The people this reaches are not diffuse. They are the workers at a specific employer who filed a petition, ran an election, and won it. Now they are waiting on a certification, or on the resolution of the employer's objections to it. That group is countable, employer by employer, and the harm to it is measured in delay. ### The Honest Version Two things this piece cannot show. First, it cannot show that any member of this Board is about to be removed. Nothing on the record says so, and a piece that implied otherwise would be predicting, not reporting. Second, it cannot put a number on the backlog. The Board's election and case statistics were not opened this run, so the size of the interval that accumulated before 7 January is unquantified here. Any figure a reader sees elsewhere should be checked against the agency's own tables, not against this piece. What can be shown is structural, and it does not depend on either. A five seat body sitting at four, with a three seat floor and no tenure protection, is one resignation or one removal away from the condition it was in before January. That is a description of the arithmetic, not a forecast. ## ROOT The reason a lapsed quorum is a workers' problem, not a scheduling problem, was settled in 2010. The Court was explicit about the cost. In New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674, decided 17 June 2010, the Court held that the Board cannot issue decisions with only two members sitting. The statute requires three members at all times to constitute a quorum, and the vote was 5 to 4, Stevens writing. Approximately 600 decisions issued between January 2008 and June 2010 were affected by that holding. Not delayed. Affected, in the sense that the work was voidable and had to be revisited. That is the precedent worth holding next to January's announcement. The cost of a lapsed quorum is not that an agency pauses and then resumes where it stopped. It is that a period of its output becomes contestable afterwards. The party with the resources to contest it gets to decide when, and in a representation dispute, that party is almost never the workers. A certification issued by a body that turns out to have lacked authority is not a certification. It is a document an employer can attack later, at a moment of the employer's choosing. Trump v. Slaughter, decided 29 June 2026, does not overrule New Process Steel and does not touch the three member floor. It changes something upstream of it. Before June, the floor was protected by the difficulty of removing a member. After June, the floor is protected by nothing except the absence of a decision to go below it. The 2010 case tells us what it costs when the floor is breached. The 2026 case tells us that breaching it is now an ordinary executive act. ## THE COUNTER MECHANISM The fifth seat is vacant, and a vacancy is a public fact with a public process. The Senate confirmed two members to this Board on 7 August 2026, and the seat was still empty afterward. No nomination to it appears on the Senate HELP committee's own running list of nominations, the same list those two confirmations are on. congress.gov refuses automated access, so read that as no nomination located, not as none existing. Check it yourself the day you read this. A seat filled to five would restore the margin that four does not have. The absence of a nominee is itself the more interesting fact. Nobody is in a hurry to rebuild it. California already wrote the answer to this, and a federal court has taken most of it away. Assembly Bill 288, Chapter 139 of the Statutes of 2025, was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on 30 September 2025. It amends two sections of the Labor Code and adds two more, one of which is section 923.1, and that section lets the state's Public Employment Relations Board take cases for private sector workers when the federal board has ceded jurisdiction. Rather than leave that phrase to argument, the statute defines it, in four clauses. The Board is deemed to have ceded jurisdiction under any of these conditions. First, a case is pending and there is a lack of a quorum, or the Board has lost its independence because the Supreme Court found its members unconstitutionally protected from removal, or its processing is enjoined by a court on a challenge to its structure. Second, a case sits more than six months without a complaint or a certification. Third, a request for review sits more than six months unanswered. Fourth, a case on review sits more than twelve months without a final decision. Every one of those conditions is measured as of 1 January 2026, and the date is doing real work. Six days later the quorum came back. On the day California's statute looks at, it had not. Read against January and June, that is a statute whose activating conditions are the subject of this piece, written before either date. The second clause of the first trigger describes Trump v. Slaughter nine months before it was decided. Most of it is not operating. The National Labor Relations Board sued the State of California and its Public Employment Relations Board, with the Teamsters intervening. On 26 December 2025, the Eastern District of California granted the Board a preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part. The order is worth reading at the level of the clause, because the headline is wrong in both directions. California is enjoined from implementing the quorum trigger, the lost independence trigger, and all three of the delay triggers, the six month ones and the twelve month one. That is the heart of the statute, and it is dark. What the court expressly permitted is the remainder, and the remainder is not nothing. The order lists what California may still implement: the separate pathway in subdivision (b)(1)(A); the cession trigger, for a Board that has expressly ceded jurisdiction; and, inside the first trigger, the clause covering a case that a court has enjoined. So one route survives intact, the one that opens when a court stops the federal board. That is a narrower condition than a quorum lapse, but a real one. Only the caption and the ordering paragraphs of that order were read for this piece. Nothing about its reasoning appears here. No later order was located, and the docket itself was not opened, so none of this should be read as the case having stopped moving. It is the place to watch. ### At the Reader's Scale The petition is the lever, and in Southern California it has an address. NLRB Region 21 covers much of Southern California from 312 North Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles, telephone 213 894 5200. The office's own page says that anyone with questions, or wishing to file a charge or a petition for election, can visit an office or call and ask for the Information Officer on duty. The same page says the office can arrange for someone to speak with a caller in the language of their choice. In this region, that is not a small provision. Petitions can also be filed electronically, through the agency's own charge and petition application. A representation petition is not an individual act, and cannot be. It is filed on behalf of a group, and it requires a showing of interest from that group. That means the thing standing between a workplace and the Board's docket is a set of signatures, collected by the people who work there. Two honest limits, because a route with unstated conditions is a route that teaches a reader not to trust the next one. Filing does not make the Board faster. A petition filed into an interval is a petition that waits. And the arithmetic above cuts both ways. Work done while the Board is properly constituted is work that stands. That is an argument for filing while four chairs are occupied, not for waiting to see whether they stay that way. Labor Day is the holiday that commemorates a settlement, not a victory, which is why the archive keeps returning to it. What is different this year is narrow and worth naming on the day. The machinery that turns a workplace vote into an enforceable fact was restored in January and had its lock removed in June. The interval between those two dates is the whole argument for using it now. ## Further Reading New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674, decided 17 June 2010. Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, decided 29 June 2026. National Labor Relations Board, James Murphy and Scott Mayer Sworn in as Board Members, 7 January 2026. National Labor Relations Board, The Board, current membership. National Labor Relations Board, Region 21, Los Angeles. Assembly Bill 288, McKinnor, Chapter 139 of the Statutes of 2025, chaptered text at the Legislative Counsel's own site, read 4 September 2026. The same chaptered text on the LegiScan mirror, a second independently hosted copy. Preliminary injunction order of 26 December 2025, Document 30 in National Labor Relations Board v. State of California, 2:25-cv-02979, E.D. Cal. The same order, a second independently hosted copy. The docket, for anything that has happened since. United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, nominations before the committee, carrying the two NLRB confirmations of 7 August 2026 and no nomination to the fifth seat. Our Revolution Media is an independent publication covering labor, power, and political economy from East LA.
001
Our Revolution Media @ourrevolution.media · 01/09/2026
New York sued Kalshi for 36 billion dollars. The CFTC's answer was an emergency order telling Kalshi to keep operating in New York, even if a state court bans it. The agency issuing that order has exactly one sitting commissioner.
100
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 27/07/2026
@pdamerica.bsky.social @progressivecaucus.bsky.social @justicedemocrats.com @jvp.bsky.social @ifnotnowmovement.org @jstreetdotorg.bsky.social @jstreetu.bsky.social @codepink.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @repcasar.bsky.social @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social
commondreams.org
How Hakeem Jeffries and J Street Teamed Up for Arming Genocide | Common Dreams
​There are no credible reasons to believe that J Street or the “House Democratic leadership” are serious about using US leverage to “change course” in ways that would really impede the genocidal state...
032
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 21/07/2026
A federal judge found the government chose to lose a $10 billion case because losing was the point. The same department that calls January 6 prosecutions weaponized signed an audit shield for the president. One word explains both: discretion.
ourrevolution.media
The Law Has Two Blades.
The Justice Department's most powerful tool is not the indictment. It is the choice. ### THE GAP #### What the Coverage Gets Wrong Last Monday's ruling ran as a Trump loses story, and the confirmation hearing that followed ran as Senate drama. Both framings miss that they are the same story, told twice, about one instrument. Prosecutorial discretion has two blades. One cuts forward, at the disfavored: investigations, indictments, prosecution letters. One cuts backward, for the favored: declined defenses, dismissed convictions, immunity by memo. The forward blade gets the headlines because it looks like action. The backward blade is nearly invisible, because its product is silence, a case that ends, a defense never mounted, an audit that never begins. Last week, unusually, a federal court put the backward blade in writing. #### The Courtroom Where Nobody Argued President Trump and his two older sons sued the IRS for $10 billion in January over the leak of his tax returns, and the case settled in late May. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found the lawsuit was brought in bad faith to manipulate the judicial process, and her core finding is the mechanism itself: there was "never adverseness between the Parties," never a real case, never any question who would prevail, because the defendant answered to the plaintiff. The administration, Williams found, failed to defend the suit because its position "would not withstand judicial scrutiny". The government did not lose the case. It declined to play, on purpose, because the settlement was the product. What the settlement bought: a $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund to pay people claiming they were wronged by the government, a figure the judge said speaks of a branding effort rather than any calculation of damages. And the day after the deal, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order shielding Trump, his family, his businesses, and an undefined universe of affiliates from federal tax audits and other claims for anything predating May 18, 2026. The fund died under bipartisan backlash, but the audit shield remains in place. Williams sanctioned the participants, referred Trump's lawyer to the Florida bar, mailed her order to the New York and D.C. bars where Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward are members, and found Blanche's sworn explanation for why the deal escaped review "at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous". The review only happened because 35 retired federal judges asked her to look, and since the ruling, more than 100 former federal and state judges have filed a 73 page ethics complaint against Blanche with the New York bar, spanning the IRS case, the Comey prosecution, and his handling of the Epstein files. #### The Blade That Cuts Backward If the IRS case were an aberration, it would be a scandal. It is not an aberration; it is a method, and it was used again the same week. Late the prior Friday, the judge who presided over the Proud Boys sedition trial dismissed the last of those convictions, the most serious verdicts to come out of January 6. The Justice Department's own motion had described the convictions it once won as ending years long, Biden era weaponized prosecutions. Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, granted the dismissal because once the executive abandons a prosecution no court can sustain it, and wrote that "no one should mistake the Court's granting of the Government's motion for its agreement" with the decision. Now assemble the backward blade's month. The department declined to defend the campaign finance limits, leaving a court appointed lawyer as the statute's last advocate. It declined to defend the IRS, because a defense would have prevented the settlement. It moved to erase convictions it had won, in the vocabulary of anti weaponization. And it signed an audit shield for the president who directs it. Four acts, one instrument: the choice not to enforce, not to defend, not to preserve. No statute was repealed for any of it. #### The Blade That Cuts Forward The same discretion runs the other direction. This month the department sent letters to election officials in all fifty states warning of criminal penalties over voter roll issues, and at last week's hearings, senators pressed Blanche on the department's prosecutions of the president's critics, including former FBI Director James Comey, with Senator Cory Booker telling him the record casts a shadow over any idea of independence. The two blades are one tool. Whoever holds the discretion decides which laws deserve a lawyer, and which defendants deserve a department. The Senate is now deciding whether to hand that discretion to its current custodian permanently. Across two days of hearings that ended Thursday, Senator John Cornyn worked from a poster of the settlement's own text to establish that Trump has not agreed in writing to kill the fund and the settlement remains an enforceable contract, and Blanche conceded that if Trump sued to enforce it, "we would litigate it". Cornyn left undecided, telling reporters he would decide when the panel votes, and he is not alone: he and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina both remain uncommitted, each citing concern that the canceled anti-weaponization fund could be revived. After Senator Graham's death, the committee math is unforgiving: a single Republican on Judiciary can stop the nomination, and the vote is expected later this month. That is not a prediction. It is arithmetic. * * * ### ROOT #### The Man Who Counted A century ago a German statistician named Emil Gumbel did something radical with the justice system of the Weimar Republic: he counted it. Gumbel tabulated the political killings of the republic's early years and the sentences courts handed down for them, and the arithmetic showed what everyone suspected and no one could prove, that murders committed by the right were punished lightly or not at all while violence from the left was prosecuted to the hilt. The same laws, on the same books, applied by the same institutions, produced two different legal systems depending on who the defendant was. Gumbel was hounded out of his professorship and eventually the country for publishing sums. His finding outlived the republic that ignored it: selective enforcement is measurable, and by the time it is measurable it is structural. #### The Patch That Removed the Choice The Germans who rebuilt after 1945 answered Gumbel's arithmetic with a design decision. German criminal procedure runs on the principle of mandatory prosecution, the Legalitätsprinzip: when sufficient evidence of a crime exists, prosecutors are obligated to pursue it. Not entitled, obligated. The discretion that serves as both blades in the American system was, by design, removed as a political instrument, with exceptions written narrowly into statute rather than left to the judgment of whoever runs the department. The honest caveat: the German patch leaks too, discretion migrates into charging decisions and case dismissals, and German prosecutors still answer to justice ministries, a structure that draws serious criticism inside Germany and in European courts. No system fully solves this. But one system treats prosecutorial choice as a danger to be constrained, and the other, as this month demonstrated end to end, treats it as a possession that changes hands. Later this month we will publish the rest of that postwar design audit, what the people who watched a legal system be captured decided to build against it. What always happens, third verse: the law stays on the books while the will to apply it is reassigned. Gumbel proved it with a table. Judge Williams proved it with an order. The evidence is always available, because the one thing selective enforcement cannot do is hide from arithmetic. * * * ### THE COUNTER MECHANISM One structural action, same layer as the problem. Gumbel's method is now free and requires no professorship. Federal court dockets are public through CourtListener and its RECAP archive, where the Williams order, the Kelly dismissal, and every filing in between can be read by anyone. Pick one case this month, the IRS matter or the Blanche confirmation record, and read one primary document instead of one headline about it. The gap between what rulings say and what coverage says they say is where informed citizens are made. And one time sensitive lever: the Judiciary Committee vote on the attorney general nomination is expected before the August recess, with both Cornyn and Tillis publicly undecided, which means individual senators matter right now in a way they rarely do. If you have a senator on that committee, the question to put to their office is specific and nonpartisan: will you require a written termination of the IRS settlement before voting to confirm its author? Not opposition, a condition. Conditions are how senates used to work. The Justice Department's most powerful tool is the choice. This week, unusually, the choosing is Congress's. * * * ### FURTHER READING * Judge says Trump administration attempted to manipulate the judicial process, NBC News * Federal Court Finds Trump v. IRS Lawsuit Plaintiffs Acted in Bad Faith, Democracy Forward * Judge rebukes Trump and DOJ over IRS lawsuit, CBS News * Read the judge's criticism of Todd Blanche in the IRS case, Forbes * Judge tosses remnants of Proud Boys seditious conspiracy case, PBS NewsHour / AP * Judge grants DOJ request to toss remaining Proud Boys convictions, NBC News * Will Cornyn Cave and Vote to Confirm Blanche as AG?, American Prospect, the 100-plus judge ethics complaint * Two GOP senators hedge on Blanche nomination, CNBC * Takeaways from Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing, NPR * Blanche confirmation hearing live coverage, CNN
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 14/07/2026
The Supreme Court granted at will removal power over independent agencies on June 29. The White House used it to empty the Election Assistance Commission on July 9, and cited the ruling by name. The other federal election referee, the FEC, has no quorum at all. Two agencies, two weeks, two methods.
ourrevolution.media
Two Weeks, Two Election Agencies, Zero Referees.
A referee can be overruled, starved, or removed. American election oversight experienced all three inside two weeks. * * * ## THE GAP ### What the Coverage Gets Wrong The firings trended under interference headlines and partisan statements, and the counterspin dismissed them as housekeeping at an agency nobody had heard of. Both frames miss the machinery. On Thursday night, the two Democratic commissioners of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission learned by email that their positions were "terminated, effective immediately." The lone remaining Republican commissioner got a phone call asking her to resign. By Friday morning, the only federal agency devoted solely to helping states run elections had zero commissioners, less than four months before the midterms. The White House did not hide the mechanism. Asked for its legal basis, an official pointed to last month's Supreme Court decision: "The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so." That sentence is the story. Not the firings alone, but the machinery that made them routine, announced eleven days after the Court built it. ### The Doctrine Arrived First On June 29, in Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the president can remove commissioners of independent agencies at will, overruling Humphrey's Executor, the 1935 precedent that let Congress insulate bipartisan commissions from the White House. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that whatever remained of the old rule, the Court was overruling it. This did not happen in one stroke. The precedent was chipped in 2020, when the Court struck down removal protections for the CFPB's single director, and finished this term for multimember commissions. The Court carved out one exception, the Federal Reserve, by a separate 5 to 4 vote, an exception two of the Court's own conservatives called unprincipled. The pattern to hold onto: the lock was not smashed, it was picked one pin at a time, and the exception proves the rule is now discretionary. Project 2025 called for exactly this, overruling Humphrey's Executor to bring so called independent agencies under direct presidential control. Written goal, judicial delivery, executive application, in that order. That is not a conspiracy claim. It is a compliance audit of a published document. ### The Second Agency Died Differently The EAC is one of two federal bodies that referee elections. The other, the Federal Election Commission, was neutralized the same fortnight by a different method: starvation. On June 30, in NRSC v. FEC, the Court struck down the limits on coordinated spending between parties and candidates, 6 to 3, overruling its own 2001 precedent. But the limits were functionally dead before the ruling. The Justice Department had stopped enforcing them and refused to defend them in court, leaving the defense to outside counsel. And the FEC itself lacks a quorum, meaning the agency charged with enforcing campaign finance law cannot issue guidance or bring enforcement actions at all. Two agencies, two methods, one result. One referee was removed by the new removal power. The other was abandoned first and overruled second. What always happens: enforcement dies before the law does, and the ruling arrives to ratify a corpse. * * * ## ROOT ### The Wall Built in 1935 This machinery has been tested before, and the differences are the point. In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt fired an FTC commissioner who opposed the New Deal, and the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Humphrey's Executor that Congress could protect commissioners of independent agencies from exactly that. For ninety years, that case was the wall between the White House and the referees. Congress built the EAC behind that wall deliberately, creating it through the Help America Vote Act after the 2000 election specifically so that federal election assistance would sit outside any president's reach, four commissioners, no more than two from one party, Senate confirmation required. The wall came down in June. The firings came eleven days later. ### The Vacancy That Was Survivable The EAC itself has stood empty before. It sat without a single commissioner for three years starting in December 2011, hamstrung but functioning, because career staff carried on certifying voting equipment and nobody was threatening them. Election experts say this week's firings will likely have little practical effect on the November midterms themselves, because elections are administered by states and counties, not Washington. Both facts are true. Neither rescues the situation, because the environment around the vacancy has changed. This month, the Justice Department sent letters to election officials in all fifty states warning they could face criminal penalties over noncitizens on voter rolls. FEMA has reportedly threatened to withhold terrorism grant funding from states that do not comply with election directives. The Center for Democracy and Technology put the new logic plainly: a workforce that watched its commissioners fired by email has every incentive to read every ambiguous instruction from the White House as one it cannot afford to resist. The vacancy is precedented. The vacancy plus prosecution letters plus grant leverage plus a demonstrated willingness to fire by email is not. The mechanism is not removal alone. It is removal plus fear, applied to the people who count. * * * ## THE COUNTER MECHANISM One structural action, same layer as the problem. The federal referee layer is being dismantled, but American elections are actually run by counties, and counties are recruiting right now for November. Benjamin Hovland, one of the fired commissioners, said it himself on his way out: much of what his agency existed to do was help election officials, and ordinary people can serve that same function by working the polls. So become the referee. Sign up as a poll worker with your county registrar, in Los Angeles County that is lavote.gov, most counties pay for training and election day. While you are there, two five minute defenses: confirm your own registration status now, not in October, and learn your state's ballot cure process so a challenged ballot does not become a discarded one. The referees who were removed cannot be reinstated by readers. The layer that still functions can be staffed by them. A referee can be overruled, starved, or removed. A reader can be one. * * * ## FURTHER READING * Trump fires Election Assistance Commission members, leaving agency unable to act, Votebeat * Trump fires remaining members of Election Assistance Commission, MS NOW, includes the White House statement citing Slaughter * After the firings, election officials need a Plan B for the EAC, Center for Democracy and Technology * Trump ousts remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission ahead of midterms, NBC News, includes Hovland's poll worker call and the 2011 precedent * Trump election commission firings spark interference concerns ahead of midterms, The Hill * Trump fires members of federal election body ahead of midterms, Forbes * Project 2025 Executive Action Tracker, Center for Progressive Reform * Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, slip opinion, Supreme Court of the United States, June 29, 2026 * NRSC v. FEC, No. 24-621, slip opinion, Supreme Court of the United States, June 30, 2026 * Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312, order denying stay, the Federal Reserve carveout, June 29, 2026 * * *
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 20/05/2026
The $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund dominated headlines. The one-page addendum posted the next day permanently bars the IRS from auditing Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization, closing an active $72.9 million dispute. That part was quieter. It was designed to be.
ourrevolution.media
The Audit Exemption They Buried in the Fine Print
**The $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is the headline. The one-page addendum posted the next day is the story.** * * * ## THE GAP ### What the Coverage Led With The Justice Department announced a $1.776 billion fund on Monday, framed as compensation for Americans who say they were politically targeted by the Biden administration. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called it “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” The number, $1.776 billion, was chosen deliberately, a reference to 1776, American independence rendered in taxpayer dollars. The announcement came packaged as a settlement: Trump and his family dropped a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. In exchange, the fund was created. Democrats called it a slush fund. Republicans like Senate Majority Leader John Thune said they were “not a big fan.” The story cycled through the usual outrage loop. Most coverage stopped there. ### What Got Buried A one-page document quietly posted to the DOJ website the following day changed the terms significantly. The expanded waiver declared the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims related to Trump or affiliated individuals, covering all tax returns filed before the settlement date. Only Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal criminal attorney in three federal cases, signed the document blocking Trump, his family, and businesses from facing tax audits. The press release issued Monday announcing the settlement made no mention of it. The fund was the distraction. The audit exemption was the delivery. ### Why the IRS Knew Better A leaked 25-page IRS memo shared with Treasury officials showed the agency’s own lawyers believed Trump’s original lawsuit was deeply flawed. Federal statute requires IRS suits to be filed within two years of the alleged infraction. The memo noted that Alina Habba, one of Trump’s personal attorneys, was present at the trial of IRS leaker Charles Littlejohn in October 2023, establishing that Trump’s team had knowledge of the leak well before claiming otherwise. The lawsuit was, by the IRS’s own legal analysis, dead on arrival. The DOJ settled anyway. * * * ## ROOT ### The One Carve-Out That Made It Legal Federal law prohibits the White House from directly instructing the IRS to start or stop specific audits. That protection exists precisely because tax enforcement over a sitting president is a structural accountability mechanism, not a political favor. The Justice Department did not address a criminal law, now being raised by critics, that prohibits presidents and other executive branch leaders from requesting the termination of IRS audits. The carve-out that allows the Attorney General to act became the door. Blanche did not act as an independent law enforcement officer here. He is the man who previously served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the federal cases over the 2020 election and the classified documents, negotiating a settlement with an administration he now serves, shielding a president he previously defended, from a tax enforcement process he now controls. ### How the Fund Is Structured to Stay Unaccountable The Anti-Weaponization Fund will be overseen by a five-member commission appointed by the Attorney General. The President can remove any member, with a replacement chosen through the same process. No detailed eligibility standards have been released. When Blanche was pressed in a Senate hearing on who qualifies, his answer was “anybody in this country can apply,” with a commission yet to be formed deciding the rules. The DOJ’s own press release notes the fund “can be audited,” at the Attorney General’s direction. The fund that shielded the president from audits can only be audited by the man who signed the shield. ### The Attorney General’s Conflict of Interest Is the Architecture The Treasury Department’s own General Counsel resigned the same day Treasury was required to certify the fund payments. When Blanche was asked whether the resignation was a coincidence, he said “I don’t know if it’s a coincidence,” adding that he had not checked why it happened. A senior legal officer at Treasury walked out the day the money moved, and the acting AG responsible for the transaction did not look into it. That is not a coincidence story. That is a resignation-of-conscience story, the kind institutions produce when someone with legal exposure decides they would rather leave than sign. * * * ## WHO PROFITS ### The First Applicant Was Already in Line The first known compensation request came the day after the announcement, from former Trump adviser Michael Caputo, who sent a letter seeking $2.7 million, claiming harm from the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Caputo did not wait for eligibility rules. There were none to wait for. Jan. 6 defendants, including those convicted of assaulting police officers before being pardoned by Trump on his first day back in office, are widely expected to apply. Blanche declined to rule out payments to members of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. A publicist who represents Jan. 6 defendants told CBS News that “anyone targeted by the Department of Justice will want to submit.” ### What the Audit Shield Is Actually Worth Most coverage treated the fund’s $1.8 billion as the headline number. The personal financial value to Trump runs through the audit exemption, not the fund. The settlement likely eliminated a dispute over a $72.9 million tax refund Trump claimed as host of The Apprentice. The trade was structured so the public sees a $1.8 billion payout to “victims,” and the president receives quiet, permanent protection from an audit process that had an active nine-figure dispute attached to it. No direct payment to Trump. No record in court. The judge overseeing the original case noted there is no official settlement of record, writing “because the Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record.” The deal exists, the money moves, and there is no court document to challenge. ### Loyalty as the Operating System Nine days before the fund was announced, Trump publicly demanded loyalty from the Supreme Court justices he appointed, calling those who ruled against him on tariffs “unpatriotic and disloyal.” CNN noted the episode would have been a career-ending scandal in his first term. In his second, it barely registered. The pattern connecting those two moments is not temperament, it is architecture. The Attorney General who signed the audit exemption was Trump’s personal defense lawyer. The commission overseeing the fund is appointed by that same AG and removable by the president. Legal experts say critics have no clear path to challenge it in court because there is no obvious plaintiff. Federal precedent does not recognize taxpayer standing, meaning everyone is harmed and the government does not recognize that harm as legally actionable. Loyalty is not a value being expressed here, it is the selection mechanism determining who enforcement reaches and who it does not. The fund is not a reward. The audit exemption is not a side effect. Together they are the transaction, paid for by everyone who still has to file. ### The Enforcement Mechanism Was the Point Accountability for concentrated wealth in the United States runs through very few institutional channels. The IRS is one of them. It does not require a criminal conviction. It does not require political will from a Congress that has spent decades defunding its audit capacity. It operates on returns, documentation, and statute. For the wealthiest and most powerful, the audit is often the only enforcement mechanism left. That mechanism, for the Trump family and the Trump Organization, was permanently closed this week. Not suspended, not delayed, forever barred by the signature of a man who used to be their lawyer. ### Where the Leverage Is Calling your representative is not useless, but it is also not sufficient for a deal structured to avoid judicial review entirely. The most viable legal path forward is a False Claims Act challenge, which requires a whistleblower inside the process to come forward with documentation of fraudulent claims being paid. The FCA’s qui tam provision allows a private citizen to file on behalf of the government and collect 15 to 30 percent of any recovery, filed under seal to protect the whistleblower during investigation. That is a real mechanism with legal teeth and financial incentive attached. If you work in government, law, or finance and have proximity to this fund’s operations, that avenue exists and attorneys will take these cases at no upfront cost. For everyone else, two organizations have active legal infrastructure and the standing to pursue this in court: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Democracy Forward. Financial support to either is more direct than most other actions available right now. The 93 House Democrats who filed an amicus brief challenging the settlement as an unconstitutional collusive lawsuit have already laid the constitutional groundwork, arguing Trump cannot be plaintiff and president simultaneously. The question is whether organizations with standing can get into court before the money moves within 60 days. The last thing worth understanding clearly: the standing trap is not an accident. A deal structured to bypass judicial review, with a commission appointed and removable by the president, with no public record in court, is a deal designed to be unchallengeable by the people paying for it. Knowing that is not despair. They built it to be unchallengeable. That has never, in the full sweep of this country’s history, been the last word. * * * ## FURTHER READING * DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund press release, Department of Justice * Leaked IRS memo analysis, The New Republic * IRS settlement expanded to bar Trump tax audits, Axios * Why critics have no clear path to challenge the fund, Semafor * Trump legal deal draws bipartisan scrutiny, Washington Post * Full constitutional analysis of the fund, Mitch the Lawyer / Substack
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 19/05/2026
The DOL called rescinding the overtime rule “a technical correction.” What it actually did was permanently eliminate overtime protections for 4 million workers. The language is designed to ensure it doesn’t read like a policy decision. It was.
ourrevolution.media
The Overtime Rule Is Gone. The DOL Called It a Technicality.
* * * On May 14th, the Department of Labor published a technical amendment in the Federal Register formally rescinding the Biden administration’s 2024 overtime rule. The agency’s own description of what it did: “Put simply, this action is a technical correction accounting for changes in the law that have already occurred.” That framing deserves scrutiny. What the DOL is describing as a technical correction is the permanent elimination of overtime protections that would have covered 4 million additional workers. What it is restoring is a salary threshold last set in 2019, one that has not been adjusted for inflation since. What it is burying in procedural language is a decision about who gets paid for the extra hours they work, and who does not. * * * ## What the Rule Actually Was ### The Numbers The Biden administration’s 2024 overtime rule raised the salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act that determines which white-collar workers are entitled to overtime pay. Under the rule, the threshold was set to rise from $684 per week to $1,128 per week, roughly $35,568 annually to $58,656 annually, with automatic updates every three years tied to current earnings data. Workers earning below that threshold would be entitled to time-and-a-half for every hour worked over forty in a week regardless of their job title. The threshold that has now been restored, $684 per week, $35,568 annually, was set in 2019. It has not moved since. Inflation since 2019 has reduced its real value by roughly 20 percent. A worker earning $35,568 today has significantly less purchasing power than a worker earning $35,568 six years ago, and the threshold that determines whether they get paid extra for working more than forty hours a week has not kept pace with any of that erosion. ### Who It Would Have Covered The 4 million workers the Biden rule would have newly covered are not a demographic abstraction. They are the people whose job titles sound managerial but whose actual working conditions do not match that description, the assistant manager at a fast food restaurant who works fifty hours a week for a fixed salary just above the threshold, the administrative coordinator at a nonprofit who has a professional title and a paycheck that reflects neither the hours nor the responsibility of the work. Salary thresholds are the mechanism by which employers classify workers as exempt from overtime. The higher the threshold, the more workers fall below it and receive the protection. The lower the threshold, the more workers can be classified as exempt regardless of what they actually do all day. The positions most directly affected sit in a specific band of the labor market: retail shift supervisors and assistant store managers at companies like Dollar General, Target, and Walmart, whose salaries have historically tracked just above whatever the federal threshold happens to be; logistics and warehouse team leads at Amazon fulfillment centers and FedEx distribution hubs who carry supervisory titles but spend most of their shifts doing the same physical work as the hourly workers around them; healthcare administrative coordinators and billing supervisors at hospital networks and home health agencies; program coordinators and case managers at nonprofits and social service organizations, many of whom hold graduate degrees and earn between $38,000 and $52,000 annually; and IT helpdesk supervisors and junior project managers at mid-size technology companies whose titles imply professional status their compensation does not reflect. Dollar General is the most documented example of how the threshold functions as a management tool rather than a genuine classification: the company has faced repeated litigation for classifying store managers as exempt while those managers stock shelves, run registers, and perform the same tasks as hourly employees. Their average store manager salary has historically been set just above the prevailing federal threshold. That is a business decision, not a coincidence. ### What the Numbers Actually Mean A worker earning $40,000 annually, just above the old threshold and below the new one, working 45 hours a week, loses roughly $3,700 in overtime pay per year under the restored rule. At 50 hours a week that figure rises to approximately $7,500. For a worker in Los Angeles, where the MIT Living Wage Calculator puts basic living costs for a single adult at roughly $56,000 annually, that is not a technicality. It is the difference between covering rent and not. The threshold being restored, $35,568 per year, sits nearly $20,000 below what it costs a single adult to live in Los Angeles County without assistance. Workers classified as exempt at that salary are working extra hours without overtime protection at a wage that does not cover basic costs in the city where they work. The rule that was rescinded would not have fully closed that gap. It would have moved the line to $58,656, still below a living wage in LA, but close enough to matter for millions of workers whose salaries currently fall between the two thresholds. ### The Legal Path That Got Us Here The 2024 rule faced immediate legal challenges in the Eastern District of Texas, where two federal judges vacated it before the higher threshold could fully take effect. The Biden administration appealed those decisions to the Fifth Circuit. The Trump DOL dropped both appeals on May 5th, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the cases. The May 14th technical amendment formalized what the court decisions and the dropped appeals had already produced. The DOL is not wrong that this is, in a narrow procedural sense, a correction to existing law. What it is not being honest about is that dropping the appeals was a choice, and formalizing the rescission rather than pursuing new rulemaking was a choice, and framing those choices as technical corrections rather than policy decisions is itself a choice with a direction. * * * ## How the Rollback Works ### ROOT: The Salary Threshold as a Political Instrument The salary threshold for overtime exemptions has been a contested political instrument since the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938. The original act established the forty-hour workweek and time-and-a-half overtime as baseline protections for American workers. The white-collar exemptions were carved out from the beginning, on the theory that genuinely managerial and professional workers have enough bargaining power and compensation to negotiate their own terms. The salary threshold is the mechanism that is supposed to ensure the exemption applies to workers who actually fit that description rather than to anyone an employer chooses to classify with a professional-sounding title. The threshold has been raised only five times in the eighty-eight years since the law was passed. Each time it has been raised, employers have challenged it, often successfully. The 2004 Bush administration rule set the threshold at $455 per week. The Obama administration attempted to raise it to $913 per week in 2016, a federal judge blocked it. The 2019 Trump rule set it at $684. The 2024 Biden rule was vacated before fully taking effect. The pattern is consistent: the threshold rises, employers litigate, courts intervene, the threshold falls back. The workers who would have been covered by the higher threshold absorb the difference in unpaid hours. ### The Texas Courts as Policy Instrument Both federal judges who vacated the Biden overtime rule sit in the Eastern District of Texas, a jurisdiction that has become the preferred venue for employer-side legal challenges to federal labor and employment regulations. The concentration of regulatory rollbacks routed through a single district court in Texas is not a coincidence. It reflects a deliberate legal strategy, honed over decades, of identifying sympathetic venues and filing challenges there before rules can take effect. The Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has a track record on labor regulation that management-side law firms understand well and use accordingly. The DOL’s decision to drop its appeals rather than fight for the rule in the Fifth Circuit removed the last mechanism that might have preserved coverage for those 4 million workers while the legal process played out. Dropping the appeal was not a concession to an already-settled legal question. It was a decision about whose interests the agency would prioritize when the outcome was still genuinely uncertain. ### The “Technical Correction” as Political Language The DOL’s framing of the rescission as a technical correction is worth naming directly as political language. A technical correction fixes an error in existing law without changing its substance. What the May 14th amendment did was permanently remove regulatory text that, had the appeals been pursued, might have been reinstated. Calling that a technical correction frames the rollback as inevitable, procedurally neutral, and devoid of policy content. None of those things are true. The agency that is supposed to enforce the wage and hour laws that protect American workers has now formally enshrined a salary threshold set seven years ago, worth less in real terms than it was when it was set, as the operative standard for determining who gets paid overtime. That is a policy decision. The language used to describe it is designed to ensure it does not read like one. * * * ## What It Means ### THE GAP The gap here is between what the law says and what the law does. The Fair Labor Standards Act says workers are entitled to overtime. The white-collar exemption says some workers are not. The salary threshold is supposed to be the line between those two categories. When the threshold is set at $35,568 and has not been adjusted for inflation in seven years, the line does not correspond to any meaningful distinction between workers who have genuine professional autonomy and workers who have a professional title pasted over a working-class job. The 4 million workers who would have been newly covered by the Biden rule are not in the gap because they do not deserve overtime protection. They are in the gap because the threshold that determines their eligibility has been kept low enough to exclude them. The same week the DOL rescinded the overtime rule, economists published findings showing that firms tend to target workers with wage premiums for AI replacement, specifically the workers whose skills and experience have earned them above-average pay. The overtime rollback and the AI targeting pattern are not separate stories. They are two mechanisms producing the same outcome: the systematic reduction of the wage floor for workers whose labor is valuable enough to generate significant returns for their employers, and insufficient institutional protection to ensure those workers share in those returns. ### WHO PROFITS The employers who benefit most directly from the rescission are those who rely heavily on salaried workers classified under the white-collar exemptions, retail chains, restaurant groups, logistics companies, healthcare networks, and the administrative infrastructure of large institutions that employs hundreds of thousands of coordinators, supervisors, and associates whose titles exceed their compensation. For those employers, the difference between a $35,568 threshold and a $58,656 threshold is the difference between paying overtime to their workforce and not paying it. The rescission makes that calculation permanently favorable to the employer. The management-side law firms that litigated the Biden rule into the Eastern District of Texas and supported the challenge at every stage are the secondary beneficiaries. The strategy worked. The precedent is established. The next administration that attempts to raise the threshold will face the same playbook in the same courts. For the workers who would have been covered, the rescission produces no immediate change in their paychecks because the Biden rule was blocked before it could take full effect. What it produces is the permanent removal of the regulatory infrastructure that would have given them a claim. They were not covered. They were never going to be covered. The technical correction made that permanent. * * * ## FURTHER READING **The full text of what was rescinded** _U.S. Department of Labor —_ Final Rule: Restoring and Extending Overtime Protections The Biden administration’s 2024 rule, what it would have done, and who it would have covered. Read the primary source before accepting the DOL’s characterization of its rescission as technical. **The legal path through Texas** _CUPA-HR —_ DOL Ends Defense of Biden Overtime Rule in Court The clearest timeline of how the appeals were dropped and what that decision actually produced. **What the rescission means for employers, in their own words** _Fisher Phillips —_ DOL Rescinds Biden-Era Overtime Rule: Cementing $35K Salary Threshold Read the management-side analysis to understand exactly which employers benefit from the restored threshold and why. **The history of the salary threshold as a political instrument** _U.S. Department of Labor —_ Fair Labor Standards Act Eighty-eight years of the law that established the forty-hour workweek, and the five times its overtime threshold has been raised. The pattern of each attempt and each rollback is the story. **The AI wage targeting connection** _OnLabor —_ News and Commentary: May 11, 2026 The same week the DOL rescinded overtime protections, economists found that firms specifically target workers with above-average wages for AI replacement. The two stories belong in the same sentence. * * * _Our Revolution Media is an independent publication covering labor, power, and political economy. Subscribe at_ ourrevolution.media_._
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 27/03/2026
We are Our Revolution Media, an independent publication based in LA. We cover labor, power, and the systems that shape everyday life for working people. No algorithms deciding what you see. No advertisers shaping what we say. Just the work. Glad you found us.
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 18/05/2026
A bourbon distillery in Kentucky is not where most people would expect federal labor law to get rewritten. But the Sixth Circuit just used it to dismantle one of the most significant worker protections built in the last decade. Most workers don’t know it happened.
ourrevolution.media
The Election Was the Point. They Took That Too.
A bourbon distillery in Kentucky is not where most people would expect federal labor law to get rewritten. But on March 6, 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals used a union drive at Brown-Forman’s Woodford Reserve facility to dismantle one of the most significant worker protections the Biden-era NLRB had built, and handed management-side law firms a roadmap for doing the same thing everywhere else. The decision in Brown-Forman Corp. v. NLRB did not make headlines the way a mass layoff does. It did not trend. It will not be chanted at a march. But its consequences for every worker who tries to organize a union in the next decade are more durable than most things that did trend this spring, and understanding what it actually did requires going back to what it was designed to undo. * * * ## What Happened at a Kentucky Distillery ### The Bourbon, the Raises, and the Vote The facts of _Brown-Forman_ are almost too on-the-nose to be useful as a symbol, except that they are real and documented. When the International Brotherhood of Teamsters began organizing production workers at Woodford Reserve, Brown-Forman’s management responded by announcing a $4-per-hour raise, expanding merit-based salary increases, and implementing a more flexible vacation policy. One week before the election, the company gave every employee a free bottle of bourbon. The union lost by a vote of 45 to 14. This conduct, granting economic benefits during an organizing campaign to influence the vote, is a textbook unfair labor practice under NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., a 1964 Supreme Court decision that established the principle that pre-election benefits have a lasting coercive effect on workers regardless of intent. The NLRB’s Administrative Law Judge agreed. The Board agreed. The Sixth Circuit agreed. Brown-Forman broke the law. On that, everyone was unanimous. Where the Sixth Circuit departed was on the remedy. The NLRB, relying on the Cemex standard it had established in 2023, ordered Brown-Forman to recognize and bargain with the Teamsters even though the union had lost the election. The Sixth Circuit threw that remedy out, ruled the Cemex standard itself invalid, and sent the case back to the NLRB to figure out what to do under the old rules. The employer cheated. The employer won anyway. That is the sentence the ruling produces when you translate it out of legal language. ### What Cemex Was and Why It Mattered To understand what was lost, you need to understand what Cemex actually did. Before 2023, the standard for when the NLRB could order an employer to bargain with a union that had lost an election was set by NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., a 1969 Supreme Court decision. Under Gissel, a bargaining order, the remedy that requires an employer to recognize and negotiate with a union regardless of the election outcome, was reserved for situations where the employer’s unfair labor practices were so serious and pervasive that no fair rerun election could ever be held. The bar was, in practice, nearly impossible to clear. Employers learned quickly that moderate cheating, the kind that tilts an election without being so egregious that it makes a second election impossible, carried almost no meaningful consequence. Cemex changed that calculus. Under the 2023 standard, when a union had already demonstrated majority support through authorization cards and an employer committed any unfair labor practice during the campaign, the default remedy shifted from “run the election again” to “bargain with the union.” The logic was direct: if an employer is willing to break the law once to stop a union, ordering another election just gives them another opportunity to break the law again. Cemex made cheating expensive in a way Gissel never had. That is why the management-side legal industry spent two years trying to kill it, and why the Brown-Forman case was the vehicle they chose. ### The Loper Bright Connection The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in _Brown-Forman_ did not come from nowhere. The court relied heavily on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the 2024 Supreme Court decision that overruled the Chevron doctrine, which had for forty years required courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. With Chevron gone, courts are now the final word on what agencies can and cannot do, and the Sixth Circuit used that authority to rule that the NLRB had overstepped by creating the Cemex standard through a single adjudicated case rather than through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. The argument is procedural rather than substantive: the Sixth Circuit did not say Cemex was wrong on the merits, it said the NLRB used the wrong process to create it. That distinction matters because it means the court never actually engaged with whether the policy itself was sound. One dissenting judge argued that the Board has always had discretion to choose between rulemaking and adjudication and that the majority’s reasoning was “unduly fastidious.” The majority didn’t care. The chain of decisions from Loper Bright through Brown-Forman is a legal architecture being built one case at a time, with each ruling expanding the space in which employers operate and narrowing the space in which workers can enforce their rights. * * * ## What the Rulebook Now Says ### ROOT: The Fifty-Year Standard They Restored The Gissel standard that _Brown-Forman_ restored was already a high bar before Cemex lowered it. Under Gissel, workers trying to get a bargaining order after a tainted election have to demonstrate either that the employer’s unfair labor practices were so serious and pervasive that they cast doubt on the results, or that the coercive atmosphere created by the employer makes any fair rerun election impossible. In practice, courts have interpreted this so narrowly that Gissel bargaining orders have been extremely rare for decades. Employers with sophisticated legal counsel learned long ago how to cheat in ways that tilt elections without crossing the Gissel threshold. What Cemex recognized was that the system had been gamed. The NLRB’s own decades of experience administering Gissel showed that moderate but systematic employer misconduct was essentially consequence-free. The pre-election wage increase, the captive audience meeting, the implied threat, the free bottle of bourbon: none of these, individually or together, typically cleared the Gissel bar. Cemex was an attempt to make the legal standard match the documented reality of what employers actually do during organizing campaigns. Brown-Forman erased that attempt and handed the law back to 1969. ### The Geography of the Rollback The Sixth Circuit’s ruling is currently binding only within its jurisdiction, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Outside those states, Cemex remains technically valid Board precedent. But the DLA Piper analysis of the decision is direct about what comes next: Brown-Forman provides a roadmap for successfully challenging Cemex-based bargaining orders in every other circuit. Management-side law firms are already using it. The question is not whether other circuits will face the same challenge. It is which one moves first. For California workers specifically, the stakes are immediate. The original Cemex case is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona. The Ninth Circuit’s decision will determine whether the doctrine survives in the western states. Given the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning, the Brown-Forman decision, and the current composition of the federal judiciary, California workers and organizers would be unwise to assume Cemex will survive that review. ### The UPS Ruling as the Same-Week Contrast The week the OnLabor roundup published the Brown-Forman analysis, it also reported that an NLRB Administrative Law Judge found UPS guilty of denying pay raises to workers specifically because of an upcoming union election, ordering the company to pay the raises workers would have received. The judge found that UPS “denied these employees pay raises because of the upcoming election which resulted from their protected union activities.” The irony is structural: UPS did almost exactly what Brown-Forman did, withheld economic benefits to influence an organizing campaign, and got caught. The ALJ ordered a remedy. Under Cemex, that remedy might have included a bargaining order. Under the post-Brown-Forman landscape, the most workers can realistically expect is the raises they were already entitled to and, possibly, another election that the employer now knows it can try to tilt again. The gap between what the law says employers cannot do and what happens to them when they do it anyway has always been wide. Brown-Forman made it wider. * * * ## What This Means for Workers ### THE GAP The practical consequence of losing Cemex is this: the default remedy for employer cheating during a union campaign goes back to being another election. For workers who have already spent months organizing, who have already faced interrogation, intimidation, implied threats, and the kind of economic pressure that a $4-per-hour raise one week before a vote produces, being told they get to try again is not a remedy. It is an invitation to be cheated again by an employer who now knows the legal ceiling on consequences. The gap between what workers lose when an employer breaks the law and what employers lose when they get caught has always been the central asymmetry of American labor law. Cemex was an imperfect attempt to narrow that gap by making the consequences of employer misconduct proportional to the harm it caused. The Brown-Forman decision restores the asymmetry. Workers who were cheated out of a fair election have to run the gauntlet again. Employers who did the cheating get a second chance with the same workforce and a clearer understanding of exactly how far they can push. ### WHO PROFITS Morgan Lewis filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of multiple employer organizations in the Sixth Circuit case, explicitly advocating for the standard’s invalidation. The management-side legal industry that built its practice around running out the clock on organizing campaigns has an obvious and documented interest in returning to a legal standard under which moderate employer misconduct during elections carries minimal consequence. That industry spent two years identifying the right vehicle for this challenge, found it in a Kentucky bourbon distillery, and used the Loper Bright architecture the Supreme Court had already built to make the argument. What profits from this ruling is not just Brown-Forman or the bourbon industry. It is the entire apparatus of union avoidance, the law firms, consultants, and management training programs whose business model depends on the reliable knowledge that employers can tilt elections without facing remedies proportional to the tilt. The Benesch analysis of the decision is candid about what employers should do now: preserve arguments challenging Cemex components that the Sixth Circuit didn’t address, monitor the Ninth Circuit case, and anticipate that a Republican-majority NLRB Board may formally reverse Cemex through its own processes before any court has to. The legal architecture is being closed from multiple directions simultaneously. That is not a coincidence. ### The Ninth Circuit Is Next The original Cemex case, the one that established the standard in the first place, is currently before the Ninth Circuit. California employers are being advised to continue exercising caution during organizing campaigns for now, not because Cemex is safe in California, but because even without it, egregious employer conduct can still support a bargaining order under Gissel. That is a thin comfort for workers whose employers have spent decades learning how to stay just below the Gissel threshold. The Ninth Circuit’s decision on the original Cemex case will be the most consequential labor law ruling of 2026 for workers in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona. It will either preserve the standard in the western states and set up a circuit split that forces the Supreme Court to weigh in, or it will follow the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning and effectively end Cemex nationally before the NLRB’s Republican majority gets around to reversing it formally. Either outcome advances the same project: a labor law landscape in which the consequences for employer misconduct during organizing campaigns are systematically insufficient to deter that misconduct. The rulebook is being rewritten again. Most workers still don’t know the first rewrite happened. * * * ## FURTHER READING **What Cemex actually established and why it mattered** _NLRB —_ Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, Case 28-CA-230115 The original 2023 Board decision that created the standard Brown-Forman dismantled. Read the primary source to understand what the Sixth Circuit was actually ruling against. **The Sixth Circuit’s full reasoning in Brown-Forman** _Benesch —_ Brown-Forman Decision Rolls Back NLRB’s Pro-Union Cemex Policy The clearest plain-language account of what the court ruled, why it ruled that way, and what employers are being advised to do next. **The dissent that named what the majority got wrong** _Justia Verdict —_ Sixth Circuit Holds that NLRB’s Cemex Ruling is the Product of an Unlawful Adjudication Professor Samuel Estreicher’s analysis of why the Sixth Circuit’s procedural reasoning is flawed, and why the dissent had the stronger argument on the merits. **Why California workers are the next test** _CDF Labor Law —_ Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Standard: What California Employers Should Know The Ninth Circuit has the original Cemex case. This piece explains what that means for workers in the western states and what the realistic range of outcomes looks like. **The Loper Bright decision that built the architecture** _Supreme Court —_ Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) The 2024 decision that ended Chevron deference and handed courts the tool the Sixth Circuit used in Brown-Forman. Understanding Loper Bright is prerequisite to understanding every agency rollback that has followed it. **The UPS ruling that landed the same week** _OnLabor —_ News and Commentary: May 11, 2026 The daily labor law roundup that reported both the UPS ALJ decision and the Cemex analysis in the same morning, making the structural contrast between what the law prohibits and what happens when employers do it anyway impossible to miss. * * * _Our Revolution Media is an independent publication covering labor, power, and political economy from East LA. Subscribe at_ ourrevolution.media_._
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 05/05/2026
Thursday happened. Thousands marched. The coalition was the broadest it has been in years. The administration dismissed it before the marches ended. That gap is the thing worth sitting with this Monday morning.
ourrevolution.media
The Streets Were Full. The Question Is What Comes Next.
* * * Thursday happened. Over 4,000 demonstrations were held across the United States under the May Day Strong banner. In Los Angeles alone, over 120 organizations and unions endorsed the march, a level of coalition support organizers said they hadn’t seen in a very long time. Thousands marched from MacArthur Park to City Hall through immigrant communities that have spent the past year living under the weight of federal enforcement. Nationally, over 500 labor unions, student groups, and community organizations participated. The crowd was real. The energy was real. The coalition was the broadest it has been in years. The administration dismissed it before the marches ended. That gap, between the size of what Thursday produced and the absence of any institutional response to it, is the thing worth sitting with this Monday morning. Not because Thursday failed. It didn’t. But because the movement’s own organizers have been explicit that Thursday was preparation for something bigger, and preparation only works if you evaluate it honestly. * * * ## What Thursday Actually Produced ### The Coalition Held The first thing Thursday proved is that the organizational infrastructure built through No Kings, the Minnesota economic blackouts, and months of local coalition work can be directed toward a coordinated national day of action and hold. The coordinator of the Los Angeles May Day Coalition attributed the coalition’s breadth directly to the federal government’s own actions, saying the July presence of immigration agents in SWAT gear and armored vehicles at MacArthur Park laid the foundation for the high turnout. That is a structural observation worth keeping: the government’s choice of tactics created the coalition that showed up Thursday. The enforcement did the organizing work. In North Carolina, nearly 20 public school districts closed due to anticipated staff absences, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education called an optional teacher workday. That is not a symbolic gesture. That is an institution making a calculation that the workforce disruption was real enough to respond to structurally rather than ride out. Airport workers in Boston and San Francisco demonstrated alongside education workers, nurses, and immigrant rights organizers under a shared banner. The breadth of sectors represented on Thursday is exactly what a 2028 general strike requires as its foundation. ### The Economic Blackout Question The harder question is what the No Work No School No Shopping economic blackout actually produced in measurable terms. The reporting is thin on this, and the thinness is itself a data point. Crowds are countable. Economic disruption is harder to quantify and easier to dismiss, and the absence of clear disruption metrics by Friday afternoon means the administration’s ability to characterize Thursday as a march rather than a strike is largely unchallenged in the public record. A Goldman Sachs report published earlier this month found that AI has wiped out an average of 16,000 jobs per month over the past year, and that figure was being cited by demonstrators across the country as evidence of what the economic blackout was responding to. The argument for economic withdrawal is strongest when the economic harm being protested is concrete and documented. That documentation exists. What Thursday still needs to develop is the capacity to translate that argument into disruption that the institutions being protested actually feel. ### MacArthur Park as Ground The SEIU-United Service Workers West president told the crowd at MacArthur Park: “We are here to say loudly and clearly that we are not afraid. We will not be silenced. We must keep fighting against the authoritarian in the White House, and stand up against the corporations and their greed.” That is the register of the moment, defiant, clear, and grounded in a specific community’s specific experience of federal power. The choice to anchor the LA march at MacArthur Park, a site the federal government used last July to stage immigration enforcement operations while children played in the park, is not rhetorical. It is a territorial claim. We are still here. This is still our ground. The march theme, “Solo el Pueblo Shuts It Down,” carried the 20th anniversary of La Gran Marcha, the 2006 mobilization that drew more than 500,000 people through downtown Los Angeles in what remains the largest single-day public demonstration in the city’s history. Thursday was explicitly connecting itself to that lineage. Whether it is building toward something of comparable scale is the question 2026 and 2027 will have to answer. * * * ## What Thursday Didn’t Prove ### The Gap Between the Claim and the Test The May Day Strong coalition framed Thursday as a general strike. By the strict definition, it was not. A general strike requires sustained work stoppages across multiple major industries that impose costs large enough to force the institutions being challenged to negotiate. What Thursday produced was the largest coordinated day of labor and community action in years, with real institutional participation and genuine economic disruption in specific sectors and specific cities, but without the scale or duration that qualifies as a general strike in the historical sense. That distinction matters for one reason: the movement’s opponents will use the gap between the claim and the reality to argue that the organizing capacity is smaller than it appears. That argument is wrong on the evidence, but it is available, and it will be made. The more honest and strategically sound framing, the one that actually serves the 2028 goal, is the one the movement’s own best organizers have been using privately: Thursday was a rehearsal. The standard is not whether it stopped the economy. The standard is whether it built the muscle. ### What the Morning After the March Didn’t Change Congress passed the Homeland Security funding bill that included $70 billion for immigration enforcement the same week as the march. Republicans voted on the budgetary measure that would fund ICE under the Department of Homeland Security while demonstrations were being organized across the country. The administration issued a statement characterizing May Day as a celebration of MAGA workers and their role in electing the president. No policy shifted. No negotiation opened. No institutional response acknowledged the scale of what happened in the streets. This is not a failure unique to Thursday. It is the condition the movement is operating in. The institutions being protested have made a consistent calculation that they can absorb street-level dissent without changing their behavior, and that calculation has been correct so far. The only thing that changes it is economic disruption at a scale that imposes costs they cannot absorb, which is exactly what Shawn Fain’s 2028 architecture is designed to produce. ### ROOT: Why One Day Has Never Been Enough The historical record on mass days of action is consistent and worth naming directly. The 1886 general strike for the eight-hour day built momentum across years before May 1st became its focal point, and even then, the eight-hour workday did not arrive until 1938. The 2006 Day Without an Immigrant, which drew half a million people through downtown Los Angeles alone, produced no immediate legislative response to the bill it was protesting. The George Floyd uprising of 2020, which generated the largest protest movement in American history by some measures, produced a wave of symbolic institutional responses and almost no durable structural change in policing. Mass mobilizations matter. They shift public consciousness, build organizational infrastructure, and demonstrate the size and breadth of a movement to its own participants, which is itself a form of power. What they have historically not done, on their own, is force institutional change. That has required sustained economic pressure, legal strategy, and the kind of coordinated power that takes years to build. Thursday was one day in what has to be a multi-year campaign if it is going to produce anything the institutions being challenged will actually feel. * * * ## What Comes Next ### THE GAP The gap between what Thursday produced and what 2028 requires is not a reason for discouragement. It is a design specification. The DSA’s National Labor Commission has been explicit that May Day 2026 is preparation for May Day 2027, which is preparation for May Day 2028, with each iteration stress-testing the organizational infrastructure and expanding the coalition’s capacity for economic disruption. The machinery being built, the coalitions, the toolkits, the aligned contract expirations, the shared demands, signals that what begins on May Day will not end there. The specific gaps Thursday revealed are measurable and addressable. The economic blackout needs better metrics and better infrastructure for documenting disruption in real time, so that the movement controls the story of what happened rather than ceding that ground to a dismissive administration. The coalition needs to convert Thursday’s turnout into ongoing organizational relationships rather than letting the energy dissipate between annual mobilizations. And the financial infrastructure, which the Union Now strike fund is beginning to build, needs to be developed enough by 2028 to sustain the duration that a genuine general strike requires. ### WHO PROFITS from the Gap Between the March and the Strike The institutions that benefit most from keeping mass labor mobilizations in the category of political expression rather than economic disruption are not subtle about their strategy. Management-side law firms published detailed employer guides to May Day before Thursday arrived, advising on how to document worker participation for potential disciplinary purposes, how to enforce no-strike clauses in existing contracts, and how to characterize political walkouts as unprotected activity under the NLRA. The legal architecture of American labor law was designed, in part, to ensure that exactly the kind of coordinated economic action May Day Strong is attempting remains legally complicated and financially risky for individual workers. That architecture is the reason a centralized strike fund matters. That architecture is the reason contract alignment matters. That architecture is the reason the 2028 target is five years out rather than next month. The people who profit from keeping workers in the street rather than off the job understand the difference between a march and a strike better than most of the commentary about Thursday does. The question is whether the movement does too. ### The 2028 Clock UAW president Shawn Fain has been direct: “A general strike isn’t going to happen on a whim. It’s not going to happen over social media. A successful general strike is going to take time, mass coordination, and a whole lot of work by the labor movement.” Thursday was that work. Not the culmination of it. The work. The UAW’s contracts expire at midnight on April 30, 2028. The AFT’s 1.8 million members have passed a resolution aligning their contract expirations to the same date. The Chicago Teachers Union, the American Postal Workers Union, and a growing list of unions have publicly supported the effort. The Union Now strike fund launched three weeks ago to address the financial asymmetry that has historically let employers wait out strikes that workers cannot sustain. The legal strategies are being developed. The coalition infrastructure is being stress-tested in real time. May Day 2026 was Thursday. May Day 2027 is 361 days away. The revolution has a deadline. It is April 30, 2028, at midnight. Thursday told us the people are ready. The next two years will tell us whether the infrastructure is. * * * ## FURTHER READING **What the LA coalition built and who showed up** _ABC7 Los Angeles —_ May Day: Thousands participate in rally, march from MacArthur Park to DTLA The ground-level account of Thursday in Los Angeles, including the coalition breadth and the speakers at MacArthur Park. **The national picture and the AI displacement context** _Al Jazeera —_ May Day rallies sweep US, demanding reforms for working-class rights The broadest single-source account of Thursday’s national scope, including the Goldman Sachs AI jobs data cited by demonstrators. **The 2028 architecture in Fain’s own words** _In These Times —_ May Day 2028 Could Transform the Labor Movement—and the World The UAW president’s direct statement of what the contract alignment is designed to produce and why the timeline is five years, not one. **The labor history Thursday was standing in** _Economic Policy Institute —_ May Day then and now: The ongoing fight for workers’ rights The 140-year arc from Haymarket to Thursday, with the structural context for why one day has never been enough on its own. **The employer’s playbook for responding to Thursday** _Fisher Phillips —_ Will Your Workers Walk Out on May 1? Read this to understand exactly what management-side firms told employers to do before, during, and after Thursday, because it reveals what they are actually afraid of and what they are not. * * * _Our Revolution Media is an independent publication covering labor, power, and political economy from East LA. Subscribe at_ ourrevolution.media_._
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 27/04/2026
American labor has always known the problem: workers run out of money before employers do. Union Now is the first attempt to build a national structure that changes that calculation. The question is whether the architecture matches the ambition.
ourrevolution.media
The Strike Fund America Never Had
* * * There is a reason employers can wait out a strike and workers often cannot. It is not moral. It is not a matter of who is right. It is a matter of who has more money, and in almost every labor dispute in American history, that answer has been the same. The employer has a balance sheet, a line of credit, and investors willing to absorb short-term losses to protect long-term control. The worker has a paycheck that stopped the day the picket line went up. This asymmetry is not incidental to how American labor law works. It is load-bearing. And until this month, the American labor movement had never built a national structure to address it directly. That changed on April 12th, when Union Now, a new 501(c)(3) nonprofit, launched at a packed rally in Manhattan. The announcement was framed as a milestone. It was. But the more important question is not what Union Now is, it is what the absence of anything like it has cost workers for the past century, and why that absence lasted so long. * * * ## The Gap That Was Always There ### Why There Was Never a Central Fund American labor's financial fragmentation is not an accident of history. It is the direct product of how the movement was structured from its earliest years, union by union, industry by industry, each organization responsible for funding its own fights with its own dues from its own members. The AFL model, which dominated American labor for most of the twentieth century, was explicitly craft-based and explicitly opposed to the kind of broad industrial solidarity that a centralized fund would require. When the CIO broke from that model in the 1930s and organized across industries, it changed the shape of labor power in the United States, but it did not build a shared financial infrastructure. Each affiliated union still kept its own strike fund, its own reserves, its own calculation of how long it could hold. The result is a movement that enters every major labor dispute structurally disadvantaged before a single picket sign is printed. Individual union strike funds vary enormously, from the Machinists' relatively robust reserves to the skeletal resources available to newly organized workers at companies like Amazon or Starbucks, where the organizing drive itself is barely funded and the first contract fight arrives before the local has had time to build anything. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 60 million workers would join a union if they could. The gap between that number and the roughly 10 percent who actually belong to one is not primarily an ideological gap. It is a resource gap. ### What Happens When the Money Runs Out The documentary record of what happens when strikes run out of funding is not subtle. The United Mine Workers of America finally ran out of money and called off the Colorado coal strike on December 10, 1914, seven months after the Ludlow Massacre. The strikers' demands were not met. The union did not obtain recognition. Many striking workers were replaced. Four hundred and eight strikers were arrested, 332 of whom were indicted for murder. The employers had not won the argument. They had simply outlasted the workers' ability to sustain the fight financially. This pattern repeats across American labor history with uncomfortable consistency. The Pullman Strike of 1894 collapsednot because workers lacked solidarity, 250,000 of them had walked off the job across 27 states, but because the federal government intervened with troops and injunctions, the ARU's leadership was arrested, and the financial infrastructure needed to sustain a national boycott at that scale did not exist. The strike ended. The ARU died. Eugene Debs went to prison. The employers went back to work. The leverage equation is straightforward: the longer a strike lasts, the more pressure builds on the employer to negotiate. But duration requires resources. Workers who cannot pay rent, cannot feed their families, and cannot absorb weeks or months without income will return to work before the employer feels enough pain to move. As Nelson put it directly: "The reality is that even if unions spent all of their money on organizing and all of their efforts on organizing, it wouldn't be enough. They have to also do all the representation of their current members, have contract fights and all the rest." The money has always been the constraint. The movement has always known it. Until now, it had not built a structure to address it at scale. ### The Leverage Equation Strike duration is not just a matter of worker endurance. It is the primary mechanism by which strikes produce results. An employer who believes a strike will collapse in two weeks has no incentive to negotiate seriously in week one. An employer who does not know when the money runs out, because the workers are drawing from a national fund rather than a local reserve that can be publicly estimated and strategically waited out, faces a fundamentally different calculation. Centralized funding changes the information available to both sides and, by changing that information, changes the power dynamics of every negotiation it touches. This is not a theoretical point. It is why German industrial unions, operating with centralized federation-level strike funds through the DGB, have historically been able to sustain longer and more consequential work stoppages than their American counterparts. It is why the British TUC's general strike fund, however imperfect, gave the 1926 General Strikea structural reach that fragmented American labor has never been able to replicate. The architecture of labor power is not separable from the financial architecture underneath it. The two are the same thing. * * * ## What Union Now Actually Is ### The Architecture Union Now is structured as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that will directly support workers who are organizing, striking, or fighting for fair contracts, working with unions to help ensure workers have the resources to sustain those fights and build campaigns at a larger scale. The nonprofit is keeping its overhead as low as possible and will assess the level of funds raised over the next four to six weeks before sending money directly to workers fighting to organize and win contracts. What distinguishes Union Now from existing union strike funds is not just scale, though scale matters, but source. Existing strike funds are built from member dues, which means they are constrained by the size and density of the existing union membership. Union Now is designed to draw from a broader base, union members, sympathetic non-union workers, and the general public, functioning as a clearinghouse that converts diffuse public support for labor into material resources at the point of conflict. Union density in the US stands at just 10 percent, despite opinion polls showing 70 percent of Americans approve of labor unions. Union Now is an attempt to close the distance between that approval and the financial reality of organizing drives and strikes. The initial funders and architects are not yet listed on the nonprofit's website, which is a transparency gap worth watching as the organization scales. The structural promise is real. The accountability mechanisms are still being built. ### The Coalition Behind It The launch rally brought together AFT President Randi Weingarten, AFA-CWA President Sara Nelson, Senator Bernie Sanders, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, alongside rank-and-file workers from REI, Delta Airlines, Starbucks, and Amazon telling their stories of organizing and resistance. The breadth of that coalition is itself a structural signal. Sanders represents the political left's most consistent labor champion. Mamdani represents a new model of municipal politics explicitly aligned with organized labor. Nelson represents the tactical wing of the movement, the leader who in 2019 used the credible threat of a flight attendant general strike to pressure the end of the federal government shutdown. Weingarten brings the organizational infrastructure of one of the largest unions in the country. The combination of political legitimacy, tactical credibility, and institutional reach on that stage is not accidental. It is a deliberate attempt to signal that Union Now is not a fringe project or a single-union initiative but a broad-based infrastructure play with durable backing. Whether the coalition holds when the first significant test arrives is a different question. ### ROOT The idea that workers need pooled financial resources to sustain collective action is not new. It is, in fact, one of the oldest structural insights in the labor movement. British trade unions were building mutual aid funds and strike reserves as early as the 1820s, decades before formal union recognition existed under law. The German labor movement, reorganized after World War II under the DGB federation model, built centralized strike funds that gave individual unions access to resources beyond their own membership when needed. The Scandinavian model goes further, with union confederation funds that can sustain national-level work stoppages across industries. What is new is the American context. The fragmented, industry-by-industry model that characterized American labor through most of the twentieth century reflected both the AFL's founding philosophy and the political constraints imposed by Taft-Hartley in 1947, which restricted secondary boycotts and made cross-union solidarity actions legally complicated. The legal architecture of American labor law was designed, in part, to limit exactly the kind of coordinated financial solidarity that Union Now is attempting to build through a nonprofit structure rather than a union federation. The 501(c)(3) model is a workaround, not a solution, but it is a meaningful one. * * * ## What It Changes and What It Doesn't ### THE GAP What Union Now makes possible, if it works, is duration. Strikes that previously would have collapsed under financial pressure in week three can potentially hold through week six. Organizing drives that stall because workers cannot absorb the risk of retaliation, being fired for union activity is illegal but common and the remedies are slow, can potentially access bridge support that keeps the campaign alive. New unions negotiating first contracts against well-resourced employers can draw on something beyond their own depleted reserves. Consider what is happening right now at Harvard. Four thousand graduate student workers walked off the job on April 21st, now six days into an indefinite strike suspending teaching, grading, and laboratory research. Many teaching fellows earn $26,300 a year, qualifying them for food stamps, while Harvard's endowment sits at $56.9 billion. The next bargaining session is not scheduled until April 28. Harvard's strategy is to wait. The workers' strategy is to hold. Whether they can hold long enough is, at its core, a financial question, and it is precisely the question Union Now was built to answer. None of this changes the underlying legal landscape, which remains heavily tilted toward employers. It does not address the NLRB's current institutional erosion, the slow pace of unfair labor practice remedies, or the strategic use of delay by management-side law firms whose entire business model depends on running out the clock on organizing campaigns. What it addresses is the financial asymmetry that makes all of those tactics more effective. That is not nothing. In the leverage equation, duration is everything. The gap that remains is accountability and scale. Nelson said the fund's plan is to assess the level of funds raised over four to six weeks before distributing resources. The architecture of who decides which workers receive support, on what criteria, and with what transparency, will determine whether Union Now functions as genuine infrastructure or as a political signaling vehicle with a fundraising page attached. The launch was real. The test has not yet arrived. ### WHO PROFITS from Labor's Financial Fragmentation The financial fragmentation of American labor has never been neutral. It has always served specific interests, primarily employers who understood that a worker movement unable to sustain long strikes is a worker movement that cannot credibly threaten the cost of resistance. Management-side law firms, union avoidance consultants, and the institutions that fund them have built entire industries on the reliable knowledge that most organizing drives and first-contract fights can be outlasted financially. The playbook is well-documented: delay NLRB proceedings, contest every procedural step, run the clock until the organizing committee burns out or the workers' savings run out, whichever comes first. As Nelson described it, companies "exploit the fundamental weakness in labor law that effectively rewards employers for their abuses." The financial fragmentation of the movement is not a bug in that system. It is a feature, one that has been maintained through decades of legal architecture, political opposition to labor law reform, and the systematic underfunding of the institutions that enforce workers' rights. Union Now does not fix any of that. What it does is introduce a new variable into the employer's calculation, one they do not yet know how to price. ### The Morning After The real test of Union Now is not the launch rally. It is the first major strike or organizing drive it funds, and whether the resources it deploys are sufficient, timely, and structurally consequential enough to change the outcome. History offers a clear benchmark: the UMWA at Ludlow had the moral argument, the public sympathy, and the organizational commitment. What it did not have was enough money to outlast Rockefeller. The miners held out for seven months after the massacre, but the strike ended in defeat when the UMW ran out of money. The question Union Now has to answer is whether a centralized fund, drawing from public support rather than member dues alone, can change that calculation in 2026 the way it could not in 1914, in a moment where the structural conditions, the legal landscape, and the communications infrastructure are all different, but the financial asymmetry between capital and labor is, if anything, larger than it has ever been. The morning after the first real test will tell us more about what Union Now actually is than anything that happened on that Manhattan pier on April 12th. * * * ## FURTHER READING **How American labor's financial architecture got built and why it fragmented** Nelson Lichtenstein, State of the Union: A Century of American Labor (Princeton University Press) — the most rigorous single-volume account of how American labor's institutional structure developed and why it ended up looking the way it does. **Why the New Deal didn't fix the problem** Jefferson Cowie, The Great Exception: The New Deal and the Limits of American Politics (Princeton University Press) — essential context for why the labor framework of the 1930s produced fragmentation rather than consolidation, and which interests that served. **Why other countries built what America didn't** Gøsta Esping-Andersen, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism(Princeton University Press) — the clearest comparative account of why Scandinavian and German labor movements developed centralized financial infrastructure that American labor never built. **The Union Now launch, in detail** Union Now Is America's New Strike Fund — The American Prospect, April 20, 2026. The most detailed account currently available of the fund's structure, stated goals, and the rally that launched it. **The law that made cross-union solidarity legally complicated** Taft-Hartley Act key reference materials — NLRB. The 1947 legislation that restricted secondary boycotts and shaped the legal limits within which Union Now is now operating. * * * _Our Revolution Media is an independent publication covering labor, power, and political economy from East LA. Subscribe at ourrevolution.media._
021
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 20/04/2026
The eight-hour workday, the weekend, the right to organize. None of these arrived because employers decided to be generous. They arrived because workers held a line at tremendous cost. Here is what that cost actually looked like.
ourrevolution.media
The Strikes They Didn’t Teach You. The Losses You’re Still Paying For.
* * * Today is the 112th anniversary of the Ludlow Massacre. On April 20, 1914, the Colorado National Guard, paid by Rockefeller’s coal company, opened fire on a tent colony of striking miners and their families, then soaked the tents in kerosene and lit them. Eleven children and two women suffocated in a pit they had dug beneath their tent for shelter. The guardsmen were never charged. The date is not in most American history books. It is not a national day of remembrance. Most workers alive today have never heard of it. That is not an accident. It is a policy. There is a version of American labor history that gets taught in schools. It goes something like this: workers were once treated badly, unions formed, things got better, and now we have weekends. It is tidy, it is brief, and it is missing almost everything that actually matters. What gets left out are the bodies. The massacres that didn’t make the textbooks. The strikes that moved the country and then got scrubbed from the record. The organizing victories that cost people everything, and the systematic effort to make sure future generations of workers would never know what their predecessors had already won and lost, sometimes multiple times over, fighting for the same rights. The erasure is the point. It always has been. * * * ## The Erasure Was the Point ### Why the Story Gets Lost Labor history disappears from the American curriculum the way most inconvenient things disappear, not all at once, but steadily, through the slow accumulation of decisions about what counts as worth teaching. A superintendent here, a textbook committee there, a school board with corporate donors and a preference for framing the past as settled and peaceful. The result is a workforce that enters the labor market with almost no understanding of how the terms of that market were negotiated in the first place, or how violent that negotiation actually was. The omission is not small. Workers who don’t know their history can’t read the present. They can’t recognize a rollback when they see one because they don’t know what was there before. They can’t build on prior victories because no one told them those victories existed. And they are far easier to manage when they believe the current arrangement is natural, inevitable, or simply how things have always been. ### The Pattern What the buried moments share is a pattern that repeats with striking consistency across more than a century. Workers organize. Employers respond with force, either private security, state militia, or both. Workers are killed, arrested, or replaced. The legal system acquits the perpetrators. The press moves on. And within a generation, the event is gone from public memory, surviving only in the oral histories of the communities directly affected and in the archives of labor historians willing to do the work of recovery. The forces that benefit from this erasure are not mysterious. Coal operators, railroad barons, meatpackers, and the political class that served their interests understood clearly that a workforce with a long memory is a workforce that knows it can win. Keeping the memory short was, and remains, a strategic interest. ### What It Costs Now The cost of this amnesia is not abstract. Workers in 2026 are negotiating over AI displacement, shrinking NLRB enforcement, and the steady erosion of public sector protections, fighting battles that earlier generations already fought, and in some cases already won, at enormous personal cost. The eight-hour workday, the right to organize, the weekend, the prohibition on child labor, none of these arrived because employers decided to be generous. They arrived because workers made it impossible to ignore them, and held that line at tremendous cost. Forgetting that cost doesn’t make the battles easier. It makes them invisible until they’re already lost. * * * ## The Events ### The Massacres Nobody Named **Lattimer, Pennsylvania, 1897.** On September 10, roughly 400 unarmed immigrant miners, mostly Polish, Slovak, and Lithuanian workers, raised an American flag and marched peacefully toward the Lattimer mine to support a newly formed United Mine Workers chapter. Luzerne County Sheriff James Martin and 150 armed deputies met them on the road. According to historical accounts, one deputy had been overheard on the streetcar ride over saying he intended to shoot six of the marchers when he arrived. Nineteen miners were killed. Dozens more were wounded. Sheriff Martin and his deputies were tried for murder and acquitted. The men who died were buried largely in paupers’ graves. The site had no public commemoration for 80 years. The event is absent from the Pennsylvania school curriculum and is not listed on the National Register of Historical Places. What Lattimer produced despite the violence was a dramatic surge in union membership, more than 10,000 new members in the immediate aftermath, and within five years the UMWA had won significant wage increases and safety improvements across the region. The victory came. The names of the dead did not travel with it. **Ludlow, Colorado, 1914.** In September 1913, roughly 11,000 coal miners working for the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Company went on strike for union recognition, an eight-hour workday, the right to live outside company towns, and an end to being paid in scrip redeemable only at company stores. Evicted from company housing, the striking miners and their families built tent colonies. On April 20, 1914, the Colorado National Guard, whose wages were being paid by Rockefeller interests, opened fire on the largest tent colony at Ludlow with machine guns. That evening, the Guard soaked the tents in kerosene and set them alight. Eleven children and two women who had dug a pit beneath their tent for shelter suffocated in the fire. The total death toll across the Colorado Coalfield War reached approximately 75. The UMWA ran out of money and called off the strike in December 1914. The strikers’ demands were not met. Union recognition was not granted. Four hundred and eight strikers were arrested, 332 indicted for murder. No guardsmen faced criminal accountability. What the massacre did produce, through the force of public outrage, was congressional pressure that eventually contributed to child labor laws and the eight-hour workday. The children in the pit are not in most American history books. Today is the anniversary of the day they died. **Blair Mountain, West Virginia, 1921.** In late August 1921, approximately 10,000 armed coal miners marched from Marmet, West Virginia toward Mingo County, where martial law was being used to suppress union organizing. The march was the culmination of years of violence by coal company-hired Baldwin-Felts agents, including the murder of pro-union Police Chief Sid Hatfield on the steps of a courthouse while his wife watched. The Battle of Blair Mountain lasted five days. Approximately one million rounds were fired. The miners’ army was racially integrated at a time when coal company towns were strictly segregated. Black and white miners, alongside Polish, Hungarian, and Italian immigrants, fought together because they understood that division was the operators’ primary tool. The federal government ultimately intervened with Army troops and military aircraft, the first time in American history that the government used air power against its own citizens. The miners surrendered rather than fire on their own country’s military. Blair Mountain remains the largest armed labor uprising in United States history. It is almost entirely absent from American history curricula. ### The Strikes That Moved the Country **Pullman, Illinois, 1894.** When the Pullman Palace Car Company cut wages by 25 to 40 percent without reducing rents in the company-owned town where workers were required to live, workers walked off the job. The American Railway Union, led by Eugene V. Debs, launched a boycott that spread to 27 states and involved 250,000 workers, effectively paralyzing rail traffic nationally. President Grover Cleveland ordered federal troops to break the strike over the objection of the Illinois governor. Debs was arrested and sentenced to six months in federal prison. Thirteen strikers were killed. The strike was crushed. Six months later, Congress created Labor Day as a federal holiday, deliberately choosing September rather than May 1st, the international workers’ day with its roots in American labor struggle, as a way of separating the American workforce from a tradition of solidarity that was considered too radical to recognize. **Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, New York, 1911.** On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in lower Manhattan. The exits were locked. The fire escapes collapsed. One hundred and forty-six garment workers, mostly young immigrant women, died, many jumping from ninth-floor windows to escape the flames. What gets remembered is the horror. What gets left out is that those workers had already tried to win protections through organizing. The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union had led a citywide shirtwaist strike just two years earlier, in 1909, winning some improvements at some shops but not at Triangle, where ownership refused to settle. The owners were acquitted of manslaughter after the fire. They collected insurance payouts exceeding their losses. Frances Perkins, who witnessed the fire from the street and later became Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of Labor, credited Triangle with shaping the New Deal labor framework. The lesson the standard history draws is that tragedy produces reform. The lesson the record supports is that workers tried to prevent the tragedy through collective action, were defeated, and then died. The reform came from the bodies, not from the organizing that preceded them, and that distinction matters enormously for how we understand what actually produces change. **Memphis, Tennessee, 1968.** On February 1, 1968, two Black sanitation workers, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, took shelter from a rainstorm in the back of their malfunctioning garbage truck. The compactor crushed them. The city’s workers’ compensation program did not cover them. Their families were left with nothing. Eleven days later, 1,300 Black men from the Memphis Department of Public Works went on strike, demanding higher wages, union recognition, and basic dignity. The signs they carried read: I AM A MAN. Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb refused to negotiate. Martin Luther King Jr. came to Memphis to march with the sanitation workers. He was assassinated on April 4, 1968, on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel, the night after delivering his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech to the strikers. The strike ended twelve days later with union recognition and a wage increase. The victory is real. The cost at which it arrived, a man’s life, and the way that cost reshaped the civil rights movement’s trajectory, is rarely part of how the story gets told. **Delano, California, 1965.** On September 8, 1965, Filipino farmworkers with the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee walked off the grape fields in Delano. Eight days later, César Chávez and the National Farm Workers Association joined the strike. What followed was a five-year campaign that included a 340-mile march to Sacramento, a national grape boycott, and sustained organizing across the Central Valley and East Los Angeles. The Delano Grape Strike ended in 1970 with the first successful farmworker union contracts in American history. The workforce that won those contracts had been explicitly excluded from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act since 1935, a deliberate carveout negotiated to secure the votes of Southern Democrats who needed agricultural labor, meaning Black and Brown workers, kept outside the law’s reach. That exclusion lasted 40 years before organizing forced the question. In California’s fields and in the streets of East LA, workers rewrote the terms of what was considered possible. The national press treated it as a regional story. It was a foundational one. ### The Day America Exported and Then Forgot May Day, International Workers’ Day, was born in the United States. On May 1, 1886, 80,000 workers in Chicago struck for the eight-hour workday in what became the opening act of a national movement. Four days later, someone threw a bomb at police during a rally in Haymarket Square. Eight labor organizers were arrested. Four were hanged after a trial widely described by legal observers as a miscarriage of justice. The international labor movement adopted May 1 as its commemorative day in honor of the Haymarket martyrs. The United States, meanwhile, moved its official labor holiday to September, choosing a date with no radical associations and a president who needed political distance from the Pullman Strike he had just used federal troops to crush. May Day became a global holiday rooted in American events that America then spent the better part of a century trying to suppress, associate with communism, and scrub from its own calendar. The irony is structural, and it was deliberate. * * * ## What the Record Actually Shows ### THE GAP What these moments share is not just violence or injustice, though they have both in abundance. What they share is a gap between what workers actually won in these struggles and what history credits them with. The eight-hour workday, the weekend, child labor protections, the right to organize, union recognition for public employees, the first farmworker contracts, none of these arrived as gifts from enlightened employers or generous legislators. They arrived because workers made the cost of not granting them too high to sustain. And they arrived unevenly, often excluding the most vulnerable workers, often clawed back within a generation, often requiring the same fight to be fought again from scratch by workers who had no idea it had already been fought. The gap between what was won and what was kept is the central story of American labor history. It is also the story most systematically absent from the way that history gets told. ### WHO PROFITS Controlling the narrative is its own form of power, and the institutions that shape what gets taught have always understood that. Corporate interests fund textbook publishers and the think tanks that produce the frameworks educators use. Politicians who depend on those interests have no reason to champion a curriculum that teaches workers what power actually looks like and how it gets taken away. The result is a story that acknowledges labor’s contribution to American prosperity in the most general terms while removing from view the specific mechanisms by which that contribution was extracted, the specific people who extracted it, and the specific violence used to keep workers from demanding a different arrangement. The documentary record is plain. The sheriff at Lattimer was acquitted. The owners of the Triangle factory walked free. The National Guard officers at Ludlow faced no charges. The federal government at Blair Mountain deployed the Army against miners, not operators. In each case, the institutions that adjudicated these events sided with capital, and the institutions that shaped public memory followed. What profits from this arrangement is not any single industry but the broader logic that workers are resources to be managed rather than people with legitimate claims on the value they produce. That logic requires a workforce that doesn’t know its own history well enough to argue otherwise. In 2026, that workforce is being asked to accept AI displacement, eroded enforcement, and diminished protections as if these are new conditions rather than old ones with new names. They are not new. The playbook is the same. Only the technology has changed. ### Further Reading and Where to Go Next The events covered here have been documented by serious historians whose work deserves a wider audience. For those who want to go deeper: **On the broader arc:** Howard Zinn’s _A People’s History of the United States_ remains the essential starting point, written with the explicit goal of telling American history from the perspective of those who built it rather than those who owned it. Philip Dray’s _There Is Power in a Union_ provides the most comprehensive single-volume narrative of American labor history. Erik Loomis’s _A History of America in Ten Strikes_ offers a sharper, more contemporary structural analysis organized around ten pivotal labor actions. **On specific events:** Paul Shackel’s _Remembering Lattimer: Labor, Migration, and Race in Pennsylvania Anthracite Country_ is the definitive work on the 1897 massacre and its erasure. Thomas Andrews’s _Killing for Coal: America’s Deadliest Labor War_ covers the Colorado coalfields and Ludlow. Chuck Keeney’s _Road to Blair Mountain_ is both family memoir and historical account from a descendant of the miners who marched. Michael Honey’s _Going Down Jericho Road_ is the standard history of the Memphis sanitation strike and King’s final campaign. Frank Bardacke’s _Trampling Out the Vintage: César Chávez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers_ is the most complete and honest account of the UFW’s rise, including the tensions within the movement that the hagiographic version tends to leave out. The record exists. It has always existed. What changes is whether workers decide it belongs to them. * * * _Our Revolution Media is an independent publication covering labor, power, and political economy from East LA. Subscribe at ourrevolution.media._
001
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 20/04/2026
@reprashida.govpeeps.us @ilhanomar.bsky.social @aoc.bsky.social @repcasar.bsky.social @summerlee.bsky.social @pdamerica.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @justicedemocrats.com @jvp.bsky.social @ifnotnowmovement.org @coribush.bsky.social
salon.com
Big winners at the Democrats’ national meeting: Israel and AIPAC - Salon.com
Democratic leaders side with Israel again, over the wishes of their own voters
011
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 07/04/2026
Emergency Petition: Remove President Trump with 25th Amendment rootsaction.org/remove-trump... @pdamerica.bsky.social @codepink.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media
rootsaction.org
Demand Immediate Removal of President Trump by Means of the 25th Amendment
We must reach out to everyone we can to build an unstoppable demand for the immediate removal from office of President Trump by means of the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for t...
053
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 06/04/2026
While Distancing from AIPAC, Most 2028 Democratic Hopefuls Are Still Embracing Israel @jvp.bsky.social @pdamerica.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @justicedemocrats.com @ninaturner.bsky.social @ifnotnowmovement.org
commondreams.org
While Distancing from AIPAC, Most 2028 Democratic Hopefuls Are Still Embracing Israel | Common Dreams
The bulk of the Democrats mapping a path to the White House for 2028 are dodging profound questions about human rights and US policy toward Israel.
031
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 27/03/2026
More than 3,000 protests. All 50 states. One question the mainstream coverage is not asking: when organized labor, antiwar organizers, and immigrant rights coalitions march together, is that still just a protest?
ourrevolution.media
They Do Not Want a King, They Want Their Country Back
_The No Kings protests return March 28. This is the third mobilization. It is not the last._ * * * Three names, and countless others, have become the reason millions of Americans are expected to take to the streets on Saturday. Keith Porter Jr. was shot and killed by an off-duty ICE officer in Los Angeles on New Year's Eve. Renée Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7, in her car, in front of witnesses and cameras. Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Veterans Health Administration who had been on the street opposing the federal occupation of his city, was shot and killed by federal agents on January 25. He was a U.S. citizen. They all were. Since this administration took office in 2025, at least six people have died in ICE custody. Last year, 32 people died in ICE custody, making it the agency's deadliest year in more than two decades. Those numbers are the context the administration does not want attached to the word "enforcement." The March 28 protests, called No Kings 3, are the third in a series of demonstrations organized in response to ICE operations and the killings that followed Operation Metro Surge, organized by a coalition that includes Indivisible, 50501, and the AFL-CIO. When organizers describe what they are protesting, they name authoritarianism, an unconstitutional war, the cost of living, and the systematic terror being used to manage a population into silence. That list has gotten longer since the first No Kings protest in June 2025. This is what the third mobilization looks like, what built it, and what it means for the movement going forward. * * * ## How We Got Here ### From June to Now: The Arc of the Movement The No Kings protests first emerged in 2025, shortly after Trump's second term began, organized by Indivisible, which describes itself as a nationwide movement to stop the rise of authoritarianism and build a real democracy that works for all people. The June 2025 protest was held on Trump's birthday, the same day he staged a military parade in Washington. That framing was not accidental. Nationally, organizers estimated that more than 5 million people participated across more than 2,000 protests. The October 2025 mobilization grew the movement further. In New York City alone, upwards of 100,000 people participated, marching through the streets of Manhattan. The scale of the October protests established something important: this was not a one-time reaction to a single policy. It was an organized, recurring pressure campaign with infrastructure and staying power. Between October and March, the conditions that built the movement intensified. The administration invaded Venezuela and attacked Iran. Operation Metro Surge, described as the largest immigration enforcement operation in U.S. history, turned Minneapolis into a flashpoint. Federal agents used pepper balls and tear gas against protesters, including near schools. Images from those confrontations prompted concerns even from some Trump administration officials over the optics of the crackdown, leading to the withdrawal of some federal law enforcement personnel from the Twin Cities. The withdrawal did not come before the shootings. ### The Killings That Changed the Calculus Renée Good's killing did not happen in isolation. It happened on the seventh day of a militarized federal operation in a major American city, during which masked agents without visible identification were conducting mass arrests. The occupation of Minneapolis by ICE brought mass detention, family separations, chemical agents deployed around schools, and a generalized climate of fear. Images circulated of the detention of a five-year-old child and of an older Hmong-American U.S. citizen marched through subfreezing weather in his underwear. Alex Pretti's death eighteen days later, a VA nurse shot while opposing what was happening in his city, produced a specific kind of grief in the labor and healthcare communities. Nurses held vigils from Tacoma to Spokane. The Washington State Nurses Association and the American Nurses Association both called for transparency and accountability. The AFL-CIO's formal alignment with the No Kings coalition after the Minnesota killings was not symbolic. It was a signal that organized labor was treating this as a worker safety and civil liberties issue, not just a political one. Edwin Torres DeSantiago, manager of the Immigrant Defense Network, described the logic of the enforcement campaign directly: "You don't send masked agents into neighborhoods, into airports, into communities to keep people safe. You send them to keep people terrified. And that fear is not accidental. It is part of a larger escalation." ### The Lawsuit Nobody Covered On March 24, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans sued the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that the federal government was withholding investigative evidence about the killings of Renée Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Sosa-Celis in order to shield the federal officers involved. That lawsuit is the legal embodiment of what the protests are saying out loud: the government is not investigating itself. Someone has to apply pressure from outside the system, because inside the system, the evidence is being buried. * * * ## What Saturday Looks Like ### The Scale More than 3,200 events are scheduled to take place on Saturday across all 50 states, with events also being held internationally. Organizers are preparing for the largest No Kings mobilization yet, against the backdrop of the U.S.-Israel war with Iran and an ongoing partial government shutdown. The flagship event is in St. Paul, Minnesota, just miles from where federal immigration agents killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti in January. Speakers and performers include Senator Bernie Sanders, Bruce Springsteen, Jane Fonda, and Joan Baez. The choice of location is the argument. Minneapolis is not incidental backdrop. It is the reason. In New York City, the March 28 mobilization marks the third No Kings protest, with rallies, marches, and bridge actions planned across all five boroughs before a larger citywide mass march later in the day. Organizers structured the day intentionally across neighborhoods rather than concentrating everything in one part of Manhattan, because the issues driving the demonstrations are being felt locally, not just nationally. ### The Coalition Behind It What is different about No Kings 3 is who is in the room. The AFL-CIO's involvement brings organized labor formally into alignment with an immigrant rights and anti-authoritarian movement. The American Federation of Teachers is a supporting organization. AFT president Randi Weingarten framed the contradiction plainly: "A billion dollars a day for this war, and yet we couldn't find the money for the Obamacare tax credits?" The coalition also runs deeper than the flagship names. Voto Latino, MoveOn Civic Action, the Immigrant Defense Network, and dozens of local and regional organizations have been building infrastructure for this moment since October. The "Eyes on ICE" training program, launched after the Minnesota killings, drew more than 200,000 viewers to its first session, equipping ordinary people with tools to monitor and document federal enforcement in their communities. That is movement infrastructure, not flash mobilization. ### What the Administration Is Saying Trump has dismissed the protests repeatedly, telling Fox News "I'm not a king." Several Republican officials have labeled the protests as anti-American. Ezra Levin, Indivisible's co-executive director, answered that framing directly: "With every ICE raid, every escalation abroad, and every abuse of power at home, Americans are rising up in opposition to Trump's attempt to rule through fear and force. From every corner of this country, we are all saying: No Kings." The administration's strategic response has been consistent: dismiss the scale, question the legitimacy, and wait for the energy to exhaust itself. The movement's response has been equally consistent: grow the coalition, document the deaths, and come back larger. * * * ## What It Means ### The Labor Connection Is the Story Most coverage of the No Kings protests frames them as anti-Trump demonstrations, which is accurate but incomplete. The AFL-CIO's formal alignment signals something more specific: organized labor is treating the ICE enforcement campaign as a direct threat to workers, not just to immigrants. When federal agents detain workers mid-shift, when a VA nurse is shot at a protest, when teachers cannot get students to school because ICE is stationed outside, these are labor conditions. The mainstream framing misses the connective tissue between immigration enforcement and the working conditions of everyone living in an enforcement zone. ### The Iran Dimension Since the October No Kings protests, the administration has invaded Venezuela and attacked Iran. Opposition to the Iran war is a new and significant dimension of the March 28 mobilization, one that broadens the coalition beyond immigration-focused organizing and into antiwar territory. That is a meaningful shift. It brings in constituencies who may have been adjacent to the movement without being central to it, and it connects the cost of war abroad to the cost of living at home in a frame that organizers have made explicit. ### The Movement's Own Question The honest question the No Kings coalition is now facing is the one every sustained protest movement eventually confronts: what does pressure without electoral power produce in the short term? The midterms are seven months away. The Senate recess begins March 30. The administration has shown no indication that mass demonstrations change its enforcement calculus. But that framing misunderstands what March 28 is actually doing. Movements do not win on the day of the march. They win by making the cost of silence higher than the cost of action, by building the organizational infrastructure that outlasts any single mobilization, and by keeping names in public view that power would prefer to let fade. Keith Porter Jr. Renée Good. Alex Pretti. The 40 people who have died in detention since this administration took office. The lawsuit filed three days ago in Washington is the direct result of that sustained pressure. The AFL-CIO's formal alignment is the direct result of that sustained pressure. The 3,200 events scheduled across all 50 states tomorrow are the direct result of that sustained pressure. The protests are not asking for permission. They are building the record, and the record is what wins in November. * * * ## THE GAP What most coverage is missing: the labor angle is being treated as a supporting detail rather than the structural story. When the AFL-CIO formally aligns with an anti-authoritarian coalition, that is not a cameo. It is a realignment. The Iran war's role in expanding the coalition has also been underreported outside of left-leaning outlets. And the Minnesota lawsuit filed three days before the protests, which alleges the federal government is actively concealing evidence about the killings that catalyzed this entire mobilization, has received almost no national attention. The protests are the story editors are chasing. The lawsuit is the story that matters longer. * * * ## ROOT How we got here in 60 seconds: **January 1, 2026:** Keith Porter Jr. is shot and killed by an off-duty ICE officer in Los Angeles. **January 7, 2026:** Renée Good is shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge. **January 23, 2026:** A general strike in Minnesota shuts down the Twin Cities in response to the federal occupation. **January 25, 2026:** Alex Pretti, a VA nurse and U.S. citizen, is shot and killed by federal agents at a Minneapolis protest. **January 30, 2026:** A nationwide general strike expands the Minnesota action across the country. **March 24, 2026:** Minnesota, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota BCA sue the DOJ and DHS for concealing evidence in the killings. **March 28, 2026:** More than 3,000 No Kings events are scheduled across all 50 states and internationally. * * * ## WHO PROFITS The enforcement campaign that produced Operation Metro Surge, the killings in Minneapolis, and the climate of terror that organizers are now mobilizing against does not benefit public safety. Federal data already showed noncitizen crime rates are lower than citizen crime rates. The enforcement operations have disrupted schools, hospitals, and workplaces in ways that create measurable harm to communities regardless of immigration status. What the enforcement campaign does produce is a politics of fear that is useful to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and redirect economic anxiety toward a visible target. The people who profit from that politics are not in the streets on Saturday. The people paying the cost are. * * * ## FURTHER READING For the full timeline of the Minnesota killings and aftermath: Killing of Renée Good, Wikipedia For the No Kings coalition's statement on the killings and ICE custody deaths: No Kings Coalition Responds to Escalating Brutality, nokings.org For the labor and healthcare worker response to Pretti's death: Alex Pretti Killing Prompts Protests and Memorials, Washington State Nurses Association For the scale of Saturday's mobilization and organizer framing: No Kings Protests, Democracy Now! For the Minnesota lawsuit in full: Minnesota Sues Trump Administration for Evidence in Good, Pretti Killings, Star Tribune For local event listings: nokings.org * * * _Our Revolution Media covers labor history, political economy, systems thinking, and working-class perspectives._ ourrevolution.media
011
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Mark Hamill @markhamillofficial.bsky.social · 27/03/2026
TOMORROW: Be a part of history! Show the world that the majority of Americans oppose the most corrupt, inept, criminal, orange "president" in U.S. History. NO KINGS. Also: NO SERIAL LIARS/CONVICTED FELONS/ADJUDICATED RAPISTS & NO ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAN Be there. Make your voices heard! 🇺🇸 ✊ #NO_KINGS
1087306809360
Our Revolution Media @ourrevolution.media · 27/03/2026
ICE never missed a paycheck during either shutdown. Not because of accident. Because $75 billion was embedded in last summer's reconciliation bill before the first shutdown started. The playbook said to do exactly that. In 2022.
000
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 26/03/2026
blueroad.info Analyzing how we got into Trumpist horror is crucial for getting out. That's why I wrote the *free* book "The Blue Road to Trump Hell." Please share.
blueroad.info
The Blue Road to Trump Hell
Get the new book "The Blue Road to Trump Hell" — available now as a FREE download.
042
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Our Revolution Media @press.ourrevolution.media.ap.brid.gy · 26/03/2026
Lockheed Martin's stock was up before the smoke cleared in Minab. That's not a coincidence, that's the business model.
ourrevolution.media
110 Children and $25 Billion in One Day, Ask Yourself Who This War Is For
_The school in Minab had been separated from the adjacent IRGC compound by perimeter walls since at least 2016. The satellite imagery existed. On February 28, someone decided it didn't matter._ 110 children were killed that day, 66 boys and 54 girls, along with 26 teachers and four parents. The U.S. military's preliminary investigation later confirmed the strike relied on outdated intelligence processed through AI targeting tools. Amnesty International has called for a public investigation, criminal accountability, and reparations. The administration has not committed to any of those. On that same day, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and RTX rose between 4% and 6%. Their combined shareholder gain in a single trading session: $25 to $30 billion. That is not a side effect of the war. That is the business model. * * * ## The First 100 Hours When the United States and Israel launched strikes across Iran on February 28, the U.S. spent an estimated $5.2 billion in the first 100 hours, roughly $1.2 billion per day, mostly in munitions that will need to be replaced, at taxpayer expense, through contracts with the same firms whose stocks surged the moment the bombs started falling. The CEOs of RTX, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, and others have since agreed to quadruple production of what the Pentagon calls "high-end weaponry." Between 2020 and 2025, those same firms spent $110 billion on stock buybacks and dividends, more than double what they invested in actual production capacity. They spent a decade paying shareholders rather than building the arsenal. Now taxpayers are being asked to fund the replenishment at emergency scale. This is where the school and the stock ticker connect. The system that produced the Minab strike, rushed intelligence, AI-assisted targeting, contractors incentivized by volume, is the same system that just made its shareholders $25 billion richer in a single session. The children in Minab are not a tragic exception to how this works. They are how it works. * * * ## What the Coverage Missed The school bombing has been reported, but treated as a discrete tragedy rather than a window into how this war is being run. Almost no outlet has connected the Minab strike to the AI targeting confirmation, the outdated intelligence finding, and the shareholder windfall in the same sentence. Those are not three stories, they are one story about who bears the cost of American military decisions and who collects the return. * * * ## THE GAP _What the mainstream coverage missed:_ The financial and human costs of this war are being reported in separate rooms. Business coverage tracks the defense sector rally. Foreign policy coverage tracks the strikes. Neither is asking who designed a targeting system that couldn't distinguish a school from a military compound, or why the firms building that system collected $25 billion on the day it failed. That is not an oversight, it's a choice about what counts as news. * * * ## WHO PROFITS Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and Boeing collected a combined $25 to $30 billion in shareholder value on the first day of strikes. Their executives have since committed to quadrupling production on federal contracts. The children in Minab have no earnings call. Working people pay in taxes. Working people die in wars. The people who profit from both are not in the schools in Minab, and they are not in the airport lounge at Newark. They are on the earnings call. * * * ## FURTHER READING _Want to go deeper? These are the sources worth your time._ * For the accountability demand: US Must Be Held Accountable for Minab School Strike — Amnesty International * For the financial picture: Weapons Makers Cash In on Trump's Iran War — Responsible Statecraft * For the full contractor breakdown: Which US and Israeli Military Companies Are Profiting from the Iran War — Al Jazeera * For the systemic argument: Defense Contractors Stand to Profit Off the Iran War — Jacobin
011
Our Revolution Media @ourrevolution.media · 24/03/2026
Newark has been running at 75% capacity since May 2025. The FAA extended flight cuts through October 2026. This isn't a DOGE story. It's a 45-year story. 🧵 (1/6)
100
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 18/03/2026
The DNC Approach to Israel Is Political Malpractice and Moral Failure - @pdamerica.bsky.social @justicedemocrats.com @ninaturner.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @rickperlstein.bsky.social @usprogressives.bsky.social @dflprogressives.bsky.social
commondreams.org
The DNC Approach to Israel Is Political Malpractice and Moral Failure | Common Dreams
No matter how much the DNC leadership tries to shunt it aside, the burning issue of US policy toward Israel will not go away.
031
Our Revolution Media @ourrevolution.media · 11/03/2026
“Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice, no war.” “This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed.”
000
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 07/03/2026
From Guernica . . . to Gaza . . . to Iran . . . @quincyinst.bsky.social @pdamerica.bsky.social @rootsaction.org @ourrevolution.media @peaceaction.bsky.social
commondreams.org
From Guernica to Gaza, Air War Is a Horror That Lets Its Perpetrators off the Hook | Common Dreams
An idea has emerged among US leaders that it’s not really a war if Americans are above it all and aren’t dying. But what is it to the civilians below?
031
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 02/03/2026
@pdamerica.bsky.social @peaceaction.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @warresistersint.bsky.social @ninaturner.bsky.social @quincyinst.bsky.social @repilhan.bsky.social @reprashida.govpeeps.us @markruffalo.bsky.social @michaelmoore.ai
commondreams.org
As US Attacks Iran, Daniel Ellsberg Speaks to Us Once More | Common Dreams
“There is a time when silence is a lie, when silence is complicity, and when silence betrays our troops, our country, and ourselves. We owe it to our troops, as well as to other potential victims of t...
021
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 10/02/2026
@justicedemocrats.com @pdamerica.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @ourreveastbay.bsky.social @ninaturner.bsky.social
salon.com
Gavin Newsom is much worse than you think
The California governor's policy priorities undermine his Trump trolling — and his progressive credentials
051
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Jess Craven ❌👑 @jesscraven101.bsky.social · 19/02/2026
ICE is overpaying massively for its detention centers. Who is pocketing those profits? Something stinks here, and it’s our tax dollars paying for it. Tell a friend.
14257138
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Norman Solomon @normansolomon.bsky.social · 30/12/2025
Here's my article out today . . . @rickperlstein.bsky.social @pdamerica.bsky.social @codepink.bsky.social @ourrevolution.media @occupydemocrats.bsky.social @fladems.bsky.social @housedemocrats.bsky.social @dncstaffunion.bsky.social @dataforprogress.org
theguardian.com
Why is the Democratic party hiding its 2024 autopsy report? | Norman Soloman
If the DNC isn’t open and transparent about why they lost, then how can we be sure they will learn their lesson this time?
2133
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Robert Reich @rbreich.bsky.social · 01/07/2025
At a time of near-record inequalities of income and wealth, Senate Republicans have passed the largest redistribution of income upward in the history of this nation. It will now be voted on in the House. Call your reps and demand they vote "NO" on this travesty: (202) 224-3121.
491380442
Our Revolution Media @ourrevolution.media · 10/06/2025
Protesting is a cornerstone of democracy. When we raise our voices, we defend our rights, stand against injustice, and remind power it serves the people. Be a voice for the voiceless. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.”
010
Reposted by Our Revolution Media
Jake Reacts - /⁠ᐠ⁠。⁠ꞈ⁠。⁠ᐟ⁠\ With resistance @handle.invalid · 04/01/2025
www.tiktok.com/@420blazed69...
tiktok.com
It’s called “The childless are ungovernable” by Antonio melonio
TikTok video by 420blazeit69
001
Our Revolution Media @ourrevolution.media · 19/01/2025
The TikTok ban isn’t the end. Stay informed and connected. I’ll be reading On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder this week. Let’s use this time to organize, build sustainable habits, and push for change. Together, we can build something stronger. #tiktokrefugee #EducateOrganizeMobilize
040