INTRODUCTION
On May Day 2025, workers across continents rallied in honor of International Workers’ Day, a celebration rooted in 19th-century labor movements that sought fair wages, humane working hours, and collective bargaining rights. From Tokyo to Los Angeles, the marchers this year voiced not only traditional labor concerns but also anxieties over the potential return of former President Donald J. Trump to the White House. These concerns, echoing across various cultural and political landscapes, highlight the interconnected nature of domestic politics and global labor rights.
International Workers’ Day has historically served as a thermometer for labor unrest and social justice demands. The 2025 commemorations were marked by calls for wage equity, resistance to neoliberal austerity, and appeals for greater labor protections in the face of automation and precarious employment. However, a distinctive feature of this year’s demonstrations was a pronounced fear among organizers and participants of the implications of a second Trump administration, particularly as it pertains to labor rights, immigration, and global democratic norms.
The 2025 rallies must be contextualized within a broader framework of resurgent right-wing populism, eroding labor protections, and post-pandemic economic dislocation. The Trumpian brand of politics—marked by nationalism, deregulation, and confrontational rhetoric toward organized labor—has become a focal point for international solidarity and protest.
“Trump’s policies were not just American; they reverberated globally, challenging workers’ rights, human rights, and democratic institutions across borders,” said Dr. Eleanor Marx-Garcia, professor of comparative labor law at the London School of Economics.
This article will examine the legal and constitutional underpinnings of labor rights in the U.S. and abroad, the historical and judicial context of May Day, the implications of Donald Trump’s policies on labor both during and potentially after his presidency, and the divergent political responses these policies have elicited. In doing so, it will engage with the core question: What are the legal and societal tensions that the 2025 May Day observances expose, and how might they shape the trajectory of labor policy and political identity in an increasingly polarized world?
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Labor rights in the United States are rooted in a patchwork of federal statutes, constitutional provisions, and administrative rulings. Key among these are the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), which protects employees’ rights to organize and collectively bargain, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.), which establishes minimum wage and overtime standards.
Internationally, the right to organize and bargain collectively is enshrined in numerous human rights instruments, such as the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining. The United States has ratified neither of these core conventions, a point that labor advocates argue undermines its credibility on global labor standards.
The celebration of May Day itself has its origins in the Haymarket affair of 1886, where a peaceful rally in Chicago advocating for an eight-hour workday turned violent after a bomb was thrown at police. Several labor leaders were arrested, and some were executed in what many historians view as a miscarriage of justice.
“The suppression of the Haymarket martyrs and the criminalization of labor activism in the Gilded Age established a dangerous precedent that still shadows U.S. labor policy,” notes Dr. William Forbath, legal historian at the University of Texas School of Law.
In contrast to much of the industrialized world, where May Day is an official public holiday, the U.S. government has long distanced itself from the day, opting instead to celebrate “Labor Day” in September. This divergence is emblematic of a broader ambivalence toward labor rights in U.S. legal and political culture.
Court decisions such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), affirmed the federal government’s authority to regulate labor relations under the Commerce Clause, setting a pivotal precedent for New Deal labor reforms. More recently, Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), struck down mandatory union dues for public-sector employees, significantly weakening labor unions’ financial base.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Although May Day 2025 itself does not revolve around a specific legal proceeding, it draws attention to several ongoing legal and policy battles in the United States. Notably, the Trump-aligned America First Legal Foundation has filed multiple suits challenging Biden-era labor protections and environmental regulations, arguing that these overstep executive authority and burden employers.
On the legislative front, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which passed the House in 2021 but stalled in the Senate, remains a flashpoint. The PRO Act aims to strengthen union organizing, override “right-to-work” laws, and expand the definition of joint-employers. Opponents argue it infringes upon states’ rights and imposes undue regulatory burdens.
“The PRO Act represents the most comprehensive pro-labor legislation in a generation, but its path to passage remains fraught with constitutional and political obstacles,” remarked Linda Greenhouse, former New York Times Supreme Court correspondent and senior fellow at Yale Law School.
In the courts, cases such as Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, currently pending certiorari, test the limits of strike protections under the NLRA and the scope of employer liability for economic damages resulting from work stoppages.
Public legal commentary on these cases has increasingly focused on the composition of the judiciary. With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, labor advocates fear a rollback of key precedents, especially those rooted in administrative deference (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)) and union-friendly interpretations of ambiguous statutory language.
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive voices view the 2025 May Day demonstrations as a critical juncture in labor history, framing the protests as a defense not only of economic rights but of democratic norms. Many civil rights groups see the convergence of labor and anti-Trump sentiment as reflective of the broader threats posed by authoritarian populism.
“What we’re witnessing is an international workers’ uprising against authoritarianism masquerading as populism. Trumpism poses an existential threat to labor rights, civil liberties, and inclusive democracy,” stated Benjamin Sachs, professor of labor and industry at Harvard Law School.
Advocacy organizations like the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for American Progress have emphasized the need for robust federal labor protections, arguing that the erosion of union density correlates with rising inequality and declining democratic participation.
“Labor unions are the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Trump-era policies gutted collective bargaining rights and emboldened corporate power at workers’ expense,” argued EPI senior fellow Heidi Shierholz.
Progressives also highlight the disproportionate impact of labor deregulation on women, immigrants, and workers of color. They argue that a Trump return would accelerate workplace discrimination, wage theft, and unsafe labor conditions through deregulatory executive orders and weakened enforcement by agencies like OSHA and the EEOC.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conversely, conservative scholars and policymakers argue that the May Day protests mischaracterize Trump’s labor record and reflect a broader progressive agenda to centralize power in the federal government.
“President Trump returned agency to American workers by reviving domestic manufacturing and renegotiating unfair trade deals that hollowed out the working class,” said Stephen Moore, co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
Right-leaning think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation view legislation like the PRO Act as federal overreach that undermines states’ autonomy and individual freedom.
“The PRO Act would obliterate right-to-work laws and force workers to fund union speech with which they may disagree. That’s antithetical to the First Amendment,” remarked Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Republican lawmakers have also defended Trump’s deregulatory agenda, arguing it reduced compliance costs and empowered small businesses.
“Under Trump, the U.S. achieved record-low unemployment and rising wages, particularly for low-income workers. His policies cut through red tape that suffocated economic opportunity,” stated Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR).
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
The tensions evident in the 2025 May Day protests evoke earlier moments in U.S. history where labor unrest intersected with political upheaval. The 1930s New Deal era marked a revolutionary expansion of labor rights amidst the backdrop of the Great Depression. Conversely, the 1981 PATCO strike signaled a sharp turn toward neoliberalism and union suppression.
“Reagan’s firing of striking air traffic controllers was a watershed moment. It emboldened corporate America and weakened organized labor for decades,” wrote Joseph McCartin, author of Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America.
Internationally, the May Day protests in 1968 France catalyzed political change, demonstrating how labor movements can both reflect and instigate national transformation.
Recent parallels include the 2019 Hong Kong protests, where workers staged citywide strikes to oppose authoritarian overreach. As in 2025, the labor movement served as a conduit for broader democratic resistance.
“When labor rises, it signals that democratic institutions are under threat. Workers know when the social contract is breaking,” said Professor Ching Kwan Lee, sociologist at UCLA.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
The 2025 May Day mobilizations suggest that labor issues will play a central role in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Should Trump secure the Republican nomination, labor policy may become a battlefield for broader constitutional and identity politics.
Policy analysts warn that a second Trump term could see the expansion of executive orders limiting collective bargaining, curtailing public-sector unionization, and restructuring the NLRB to favor employers.
Think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Brennan Center for Justice have warned that such moves could violate administrative law and threaten due process protections under the Fifth Amendment.
“We’re entering an era where administrative rollback isn’t just a policy choice—it’s a governance strategy aimed at undermining labor and regulatory institutions,” said Brookings senior fellow Molly Reynolds.
Forecasting models also predict increased labor militancy. The AFL-CIO and SEIU are reportedly preparing for mass mobilizations in the event of anti-union federal action.
Internationally, a Trump resurgence could strain labor diplomacy, particularly with EU countries committed to social protections. U.S. non-compliance with ILO standards could further diminish its standing in multilateral labor forums.
“A second Trump term would send a chilling signal globally—that the U.S. is retreating from labor solidarity and international human rights commitments,” warned Guy Ryder, former ILO Director-General.
CONCLUSION
The 2025 May Day protests were more than ritualized displays of worker solidarity; they were a referendum on the future of labor rights in an era of political volatility. They exposed deep fissures between competing visions of national identity, economic governance, and democratic legitimacy.
Progressives see a reinvigorated labor movement as essential to countering authoritarian tendencies. Conservatives view current labor reforms as encroachments on economic liberty and constitutional order. These perspectives are unlikely to converge, but understanding them is essential for any viable labor policy.
“Labor rights have always been the canary in the coal mine for democracy. If we ignore their erosion, we risk losing much more,” concluded Dr. Rebecca Tsosie, professor of law and ethics at Arizona State University.
As the world hurtles toward another consequential American election, one must ask: Will labor be the force that renews democratic promise, or the casualty of its decline?
FOR FURTHER READING
- “House Passes PRO Act to Expand Labor Rights, but Senate Fight Looms”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/pro-act-labor-unions.html - “Why the PRO Act Would Hurt Workers”
https://www.heritage.org/labor/commentary/why-the-pro-act-would-hurt-workers - “The Future of Unions in a Fractured America”
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-future-of-unions-in-a-fractured-america/ - “What Trump’s Return Would Mean for American Workers”
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/10/12/what-trumps-return-would-mean-for-american-workers - “May Day 2025: Workers Rally Against Trump and For Rights”
https://jacobin.com/2025/05/may-day-2025-workers-rights-trump