The PRO Act: Labor’s Legislative Anchor
The PRO Act — which would expand union organizing rights, ban captive audience meetings, and strengthen collective bargaining protections — passed the House in 2021 but died in the Senate. Blocked by the filibuster, it remains the centerpiece of labor’s 2026 electoral argument: only a Democratic Senate majority can move labor law reform. AFL-CIO is using this message in every competitive Senate state with union presence.
Steel vs. Auto: The Tariff Split in Labor
USW supported the 2025 tariff expansion as protective of domestic steel production. UAW, fresh off its 2023 strike victory, has a more complex calculus: tariffs raise input costs for auto assembly plants, potentially threatening the very jobs UAW represents. This sectoral split weakens labor’s ability to present a unified message on trade — and gives Republicans cover to claim union support for protectionist policies while opposing the PRO Act.
AFL-CIO & SEIU Mobilization Programs
Labor’s 2026 electoral strategy is more disciplined than 2024, when internal disputes weakened coordination. SEIU is investing in door-knocking programs in competitive suburban districts in PA, MI, and AZ. AFL-CIO is deploying union member-to-member conversations — the most effective GOTV technique — in Ohio, Nevada, and Montana. Right-to-work state expansion in six states between 2020 and 2024 has weakened union density, making existing members more, not less, motivated to defend labor rights at the ballot box.
The Stakes for Labor in 2026
Organized labor’s political influence has tracked its membership density: as private sector unionization fell from 35% in the 1950s to 6% today, labor’s electoral leverage declined in tandem. The 14.4 million current union members represent 10.1% of the workforce — a floor reached after decades of decline. But within that smaller footprint, union households remain disproportionately concentrated in the exact geographies that determine competitive elections: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona.
The Trump 2024 inroads were real but not uniform. The most significant movement occurred among non-college white union workers in manufacturing — the same demographic that moved toward Trump in 2016 and 2020. Cultural factors — immigration, identity politics messaging, and Trump’s personal brand as a working-class champion — drove these voters more than economic calculation. The UAW formally endorsed Harris in 2024, but the rank and file did not follow leadership in the same numbers that previous generations had.
For 2026, the question is whether economic conditions change the calculation. Tariff-driven input cost increases affecting manufacturing plants, potential layoffs in trade-exposed sectors, and the failure of the PRO Act to advance give labor leaders a concrete economic argument to make. The DOGE cuts, while not directly targeting private sector unions, have hit public sector workers — federal employees who belong to AFGE and AFSCME — creating a galvanizing effect that extends beyond the directly affected workers to their union peers.
Right-to-work state expansion remains the existential threat. Six states passed or expanded right-to-work laws between 2020 and 2024, and Republican-controlled legislatures in Ohio and Michigan have attempted to revisit their states’ collective bargaining frameworks. In Michigan, where voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting labor rights in 2022, the union political infrastructure remains stronger than most states — making MI one of the most competitive union-voter battlegrounds in the 2026 cycle.
