Kalshi, Polymarket and the Coalition for Prediction Markets have spent at least $3 million this year on lobbying and campaign contributions across the federal and state levels, according to a new report from the government watchdog group OpenSecrets.

Prediction market platforms say they are like commodity markets that offer contracts to speculate on the future price of corn or oil — not sportsbooks that allow gamblers to place bets. But many states reject those justifications, arguing the platforms offer a backdoor to skirt state gambling regulations, particularly on sports.

The issue has sparked action from state regulators, new legislation, and a flurry of lawsuits from states, prediction markets, and the Trump administration, which has sought to sideline state oversight.

Kalshi, by far the largest prediction market platform, has targeted much of its political spending on governors and state attorneys general.

OpenSecrets found that Kalshi poured more than $300,000 combined into the two major political organizations dedicated to electing and supporting AGs: The Republican Attorneys General Association and the Democratic Attorneys General Association.

Likewise, Kalshi donated $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association and $150,000 to the Democratic Governors Association in the first half of the year.

“Like many U.S. regulated companies, we support candidates on both sides of the aisle,” Dani Lever, a spokesperson for Kalshi, told OpenSecrets in a statement.

The analysis found Kalshi has hired at least one lobbyist in 41 states, focusing much of that effort on California and New York. That means the company has a  lobbying presence in every state that has introduced prediction-market-specific legislation.

State lawmakers of both parties are growing increasingly frustrated with prediction markets, arguing they are avoiding state gambling regulations or gambling bans, gambling taxes and consumer protections.

This summer, Sara Slane, Head of Corporate Development at Kalshi, told lawmakers that the company was committed to building relationships with the states. But she said the prediction markets are not subject to state oversight, as they are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives such as futures contracts on stocks.

That five-member commission currently has four vacancies. But it has aggressively defended prediction markets and its right to oversee them  — going so far as to sue nine states that attempted to regulate the industry. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, has financial stakes in both Kalshi and Polymarket.

With litigation flying on the issue, many observers expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide what role states can play in regulating prediction markets.

In addition to its political spending in states, OpenSecrets found the industry remains committed to federal lobbying, with Kalshi alone spending nearly $1 million in the first half of the year. Those efforts focused on the CFTC, the White House, the Securities & Exchange Commission and both chambers of Congress.

Brad Lipton, director of the Roosevelt Institute’s corporate power and financial regulation program, told OpenSecrets the lobbying push was evidence of the “existential question” facing prediction markets.

“It’s not at all clear to me that their business model can compete if they are going to comply with state law,” Lipton said. “They’re really trying to create a situation, I think, where they have enough political power to overcome the legal deficiencies in their arguments.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Democratic and Republican governors say they will more aggressively push back on federal overreach regardless of which party controls Washington.

Earlier this month, the bipartisan National Governors Association for the first time in over a decade updated its internal principles on federalism — the system of power sharing between Washington, D.C., and the states. That document now says governors must defend state sovereignty, including through public criticism of federal overreach, legal challenges to federal action, and declining to use state resources to enforce federal laws. 

The new policy comes as more state leaders during President Donald Trump’s second term elevate the importance of federalism, the uniquely American structure created by the framers of the Constitution.

The National Governors Association’s new policy calls for the federal government to respect the constitutional balance of power on pressing issues such as artificial intelligence, election administration and immigration — all of which have sparked state-federal conflicts under Trump’s presidency. And it takes aim at deployment of the National Guard after Trump last year moved to send troops into Democratic-leaning cities he characterized as crime-ridden, sparking major concerns about state sovereignty.

The new policy says the president should seek the consent of governors before deploying National Guard members and says such action should be limited to instances when federal resources are insufficient.

“Additionally, absent rare and extraordinary circumstances, the President should not deploy or transition a State’s National Guard from one state to another without the consent of both the sending and receiving states’ Governors,” the policy states.

Governors say they must resist federal overreach under Democratic and Republican presidents.

“I think it’s just a real test of how much you believe in federalism or not when your team is in power,” said Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who worked on reshaping NGA’s federalism policy for months, along with the governors of Maryland, North Carolina and Oklahoma. 

He said governors of both parties have been increasingly interested in issues of federalism since Trump’s deployment of troops last year. A GOP leader of a politically liberal state, Scott publicly criticized the president’s deployments last year and defended the Democratic governor of Illinois. 

While he said tension over troops has largely subsided, he said he expects governors will remain vigilant about power sharing between Washington and the states. 

“Republican and Democratic governors won’t agree on every policy and shouldn’t, but we should all agree that the constitutional balance of power really does matter,” Scott said. “I think that there will be more attention paid to this and continue to push forward on this because again, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the Trump administration, or a future administration of the other party, it’s doing what’s right for our states.”

Governors say states must be allowed to experiment on programs, compete with each other and pursue sometimes divergent policies. 

“It’s the best way to ensure that you really get locally driven solutions to problems, which creates a laboratory of democracy, laboratory of ideas, of innovation,” said North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein. “And it’s a way of ensuring that too much power doesn’t aggregate in any one person or body because it’s spread out among the 50 states and the federal government.”

Stein said governors across the political spectrum largely agreed on issues of federalism, which were studied by a dedicated working group and later approved by the organization’s executive committee. He credited his Republican colleagues for speaking out about issues of federal overreach while their party controls Washington.

“I’ve got all kinds of respect for them and their willingness to do that because I know that it’s not the easiest thing to do in these inflamed times,” he said. “I’ve only been in the job for a year and a half, and I haven’t had a Democratic president, so I hope that I would have as much principle as what I’ve witnessed out of a number of Republican governors.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

WE BUY HOUSES. CASH 4 HOMES. FA$T CA$H.

The signs, text messages and mailers promise cash, quick sales and a seamless means of unloading unwanted homes. 

But advocates say the business of buying homes for cash can confuse vulnerable homeowners and rob them of home equity. And now, many states are cracking down. 

Wholesalers often solicit directly, calling or door knocking looking for sales. But they’re best known by the signs lining curbs and utility poles.

Real estate wholesaling operates distinctly from the traditional real estate market of listings, showings and agents. Wholesalers look to get unlisted homes under contract at a discount and then sell or assign that contract to another speculator before finalizing the property transfer — acting as a middleman and pocketing a profit along the way. The end buyer may flip the house for a profit or hold it as a rental property, but critics say the process can deprive owners of realizing the full value of their homes.

A growing number of state lawmakers worry that buyers don’t fully understand the wholesaling process or even who will end up owning their home at the end of the sale. Lawmakers and regulators, backed by organized real estate trade groups and consumer advocacy organizations, are pushing for more limits on the practice. At least 15 states have recently approved new regulations of wholesalers.

Those include Missouri, where Republican state Rep. Chris Brown sponsored the House version of a  law enacted earlier this year requiring wholesalers to give sellers a written disclosure at least 14 days before closing, the final step in the property transaction. The disclosure informs homeowners that the wholesaler may offer below market value and reassign the contract to another buyer. It also encourages sellers to contact an attorney before finalizing a deal. 

Brown, who holds an inactive real estate license and is married to an active agent, said the law doesn’t ban wholesaling altogether. 

“We’re just trying to make sure that there’s transparency there, and that the seller of the property is in fact educated and fully informed as to what the wholesaler plans to do with the property,” Brown told Stateline. “That’s all it is.”

He said wholesalers often target people facing financial problems or who own homes with major issues. 

“And they’re just looking to unload it, and they don’t really at times understand the value of the property,” he said. “So unfortunately, some of these wholesalers become a little bit predatory in nature and then people just lose a lot of equity in their house.”

Critics argue that wholesalers target minority, low-income and older homeowners who may not appreciate the full value of their home. Terrell Walls, president of the Greater Kansas City Association of Real Estate Brokers, a group representing Black real estate professionals, in a statement called predatory wholesaling the “modern-day cousin” of redlining and other practices that historically denied Black families homeownership and wealth.

No state has outright banned wholesaling. But new regulations in Maryland, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas require disclosure from wholesalers to sellers. Other states, including Illinois, South Carolina and Rhode Island, have required many wholesalers to hold real estate licenses — bringing them under the watch of state regulators.

“Legislators are responding maybe a little too aggressively, but not by much,” said Jeff Watson, general counsel for the National Real Estate Investors Association, which represents 43,000 house flippers and landlords. 

‘Stop trying to hide’

Watson said many wholesalers are effectively acting as real estate agents without the same licensing and consumer protection rules. Many wholesalers solicit homeowners directly and then market the home to other investors or buyers once they’ve secured a contract. 

“There is a small percentage of wholesalers, in my opinion, that do the business correctly,” Watson said. “They are honest, ethical capitalists. They can buy houses that real estate agents refuse to look at let alone list … Unfortunately, they’re not the majority.”

He said wholesalers can play an important role by helping to find buyers for some of the most distressed homes. 

For instance, out-of-state heirs or relatives may want to unload a home quickly after a relative dies or ages out of a house. When those homes are unkempt, have animal infestations or major maintenance needs, owners can secure a quick sale without going through the traditional real estate market. 

“Ethical wholesalers can do tremendous things for them,” he said. 

Wholesalers have publicly acknowledged that their industry is changing. 

Following the enactment of an Oklahoma law last year requiring new disclosures, real estate investor Jerry Norton said wholesalers would have to start doing a better job explaining wholesaling and the value it can provide to owners of distressed homes.

Norton, who could not be reached for comment, says he has made millions flipping and wholesaling homes. He offers paid real estate investment education and runs the popular YouTube channel Flipping Mastery TV. On his show last year, he recounted how he was working to tell sellers how wholesaling works and how they make money off the transactions.  

“This is the new way to wholesale. Stop trying to hide what you’re doing,” he said. “Address the elephant in the room. Remember, at the end of the day, the seller wants to work with someone they trust. Honesty is the pinnacle of trust. Be honest and you’ll actually do more business, not less business.”

Consumer confusion

The AARP has pushed model legislation across several states addressing real estate wholesaling. It would require wholesaler licensing, appraisals, cancellation rights and limits on aggressive marketing tactics.

Jenn Jones, AARP’s vice president for retirement security and livable communities, said the organization’s aim is twofold: it wants to ensure older adults can safely age at home and it wants to protect the wealth of homeowners.

“For a lot of older adults, their retirement security, their financial security is in that house,” she said. “That was supposed to be the American dream: You become a homeowner and that asset builds equity, and that is the thing that gives you some comfort in your later years. It’s also the thing that you have that you can pass on to your kids.”

Jones said sellers should know that wholesalers may not be the end buyer of their property, should have the time for an independent home valuation and should be allowed to cancel a contract if they change their minds.  

She pointed to the Oklahoma neighborhood where her mother lives. Jones’ mother told her about neighbors quickly selling their homes for $20,000 or less in cash — despite actual property values that are much higher. Her mother, who is in her late seventies, often receives calls and unsolicited visits from people looking to buy her house.

“We could probably all point to a story that we’ve heard or an experience that we’ve had,” Jones said. “This is about making sure that people understand fully the decision that they’re making, and they don’t end up in a situation where they are potentially jeopardizing either their own financial security or that of their kids because they were pressured to sell.”

Experts and lawmakers said recent measures targeting wholesalers have proved largely bipartisan and faced little pushback from the industry.

Rhode Island state Sen. Robert Britto, a Democrat, said a new law he sponsored this year faced “literally no opposition.” It requires wholesalers to possess a state-issued real estate license, which he hopes will put legitimate businesses under state supervision and push bad actors out of the industry.

“I’d think there would be more opposition, but I guess those actors didn’t want to really and truly expose themselves,” he said. “It was a catch-22 for them … Do I complain about it, but if I complain about it, am I showing my true colors?”

That measure was pushed by the Rhode Island Association of Realtors, which represents nearly 6,000 members across the state.

“Real estate professionals are licensed for a really good reason and sometimes the consumers would assume they were talking to a real estate professional,” said Rebekah Wagoner, associate counsel for the trade group. 

Wagoner said wholesaling isn’t inherently unlawful or predatory and can play a role in selling distressed properties. 

“Our issue is the transparency,” she said. “It’s that a lot of the consumers didn’t understand the transaction.”

Without state licensing, she said wholesalers face no accountability if consumers feel wronged.

“We want them to have a regulatory framework that means that if something happens, the consumer is protected,” she said. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Tens of thousands of Americans continue to lose access to food assistance each month, even as Congress debates slowing down major cuts to federal food stamps.

New data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows more than 330,000 Americans lost access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, between May and June, the latest numbers available. 

More than 5 million people have lost food stamps since the enactment last July of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut taxes and federal safety net programs. The law changed SNAP eligibility rules, ended certain work requirement exemptions and shifted new costs to states that administer the federal program.

An analysis by the anti-hunger nonprofit Food Research and Action Center shows SNAP participation has decreased since the new law in every state except Alaska. State leaders there cited unique geographic and economic conditions, including higher food prices and high seasonal unemployment specific to Alaska. 

In Arizona, SNAP participation dropped by more than half since July 2025, with about 421,000 people receiving assistance this June, the center’s data shows. Louisiana’s enrollment dropped by more than 173,000 — a decrease of about 22%. Participation in Illinois dropped by more than 368,000 — a drop of about 20%.

Those numbers come as advocates pressure Congress to reverse the SNAP cuts they say will exacerbate growing hunger across the country as grocery prices continue to soar.

While nonprofits and many local, state and federal political leaders have pushed for a complete rescission of those cuts, Republicans in control of Congress have so far only signed off on delaying some of their impact.

For months, the Senate has been debating details of the farm bill, a major piece of legislation that funds SNAP, farm subsidies and rural development programs. Earlier this month, the Republican-led Senate Agriculture Committee approved on party lines a farm bill proposal that would delay for one year impending SNAP cost shifts to states. Democrats had pushed for a two-year extension.

That legislation awaits debate by the full Senate before the current legislation’s Sept. 30 expiration.

Last year’s tax and spending law requires states to cover more of SNAP’s administrative costs, and beginning in fall 2027, states for the first time will fund some benefits themselves. The new law will penalize states depending on their payment error rates — a technical calculation by the feds of SNAP overpayments and underpayments, not fraud. That change could cost states billions of dollars, raising fears about the future of the program. 

If the version of the farm bill that advanced this month is passed, states would have until October 2028 to lower their error rates before they are required to shoulder part of the costs. 

Aside from coming up with the funds, states will likely need to implement new IT and budgeting processes. Historically, SNAP benefits were not a budget line item for states because federal funds flowed directly to recipients’ benefit cards, Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, told lawmakers in July. 

“There are lots of questions about how and when the cost share will be paid,” Kallins said. “Will this be in real time as benefits are issued? Will it be reconciled at a later date? We don’t know.”

Republicans, including Arkansas U.S. Sen. John Boozman who leads the agriculture committee, have argued that error rates are evidence that improvements are needed in state administration of the program.

Anti-hunger advocacy groups say the one-year delay is insufficient to protect states and people relying on SNAP.

“We urge Senators to speak out against this flawed Farm Bill and to stop it from advancing to the floor for a vote,” Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research and Action Center, said in a statement last week. “Congress must use any other legislative vehicle to reverse the SNAP cuts and address the cost shifts to states to provide meaningful assistance to both families and farmers.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with Canada is creating headaches for Republicans ahead of November’s midterms as high prices remain a top concern among voters.

Responding to Trump’s increased tariffs, Canadian officials have said they’re deliberately targeting goods from states where there are close elections. And GOP candidates in Kansas, Maine and Ohio among others have been forced to balance supporting Trump with defending local manufacturers.

Trump has repeatedly targeted Canada, traditionally a close American ally, since returning to the White House last year. But his August move to impose 50% tariffs on billions of dollars of Canadian imports has heightened tensions, pushing Canada to retaliate with its own tariffs on hundreds of American-made products that went into effect Tuesday.

Nearly $28 billion in U.S. exports to Canada now carry up to 50% tariffs, a dollar-for-dollar match on Trump’s taxes on Canadian goods imposed last month, according to Canadian officials. 

Trump has long argued that Canada is taking advantage of the United States because of a longstanding trade deficit — meaning more Canadian products are imported here than American products are exported to Canada.

“They don’t pay for anything, and they want to be treated like a state, but they’re not a state,” Trump said last month after trade talks fell apart.

The fallout could affect consumers and businesses across the country, but Canada targeted many of its tariffs to inflict political pain just ahead of the crucial U.S. midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

The trade standoff has put Republican candidates in a tough position with an electorate already fed up with high prices and underscores ongoing concerns about how federal trade policy will affect American business and state economies.

On Labor Day, Trump threatened to halt sales of the Canadian airplane manufacturer Bombardier, saying its planes weren’t good enough and the company was treating America as a “piggybank.”

That became immediate political fodder in Kansas, home to Bombardier’s U.S. headquarters and competitive races for governor and U.S. Senate this year. The company employs more than 1,000 people in Wichita, the state’s most populous city that calls itself the “Air Capital of the World” with a local economy dominated by aerospace and aviation manufacturing. 

Trump’s trade war with Canada escalates as new tariffs launch

The state’s senior Republican U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran immediately defended Bombardier, as did Ty Masterson, the Republican nominee for governor and current state Senate president. But the issue has put pressure on the state’s junior Sen. Roger Marshall, a close Trump ally running for reelection in a competitive race. 

“We cannot allow this chaotic economic policy to continue to hurt Kansans; they deserve so much better. As your Senator, I will always stand up for Kansas workers,” the Democratic nominee in the race, Adam Hamilton, wrote on X Monday. 

On Tuesday, Marshall said he would fight to keep Bombardier’s jobs in Kansas, posting on social media, “I’ve already taken that concern inside the Oval Office.” Marshall said he agreed with Trump’s aim of bringing more manufacturing jobs, particularly in Bombardier’s case because the company sells half its products in the United States.

Tariffs on Canadian and American goods are poised to especially hurt Northern and Midwestern states, according to an analysis from Oxford Economics. It identified North Dakota, Montana, Michigan, Illinois and Vermont as the states most likely to be affected because they trade the most with Canada. 

Minnesota State Auditor Julie Blaha, a Democrat, said the trade feud is just the latest federal move to push up costs for businesses, consumers and local governments. Her office oversees some $56 billion in local government spending through financial integrity audits and budget analyses. She said Minnesota cities and townships have had no choice but to raise property taxes as they encounter rising prices.

“It’s just one wave after another. And it’s piling up,” she said. “All these rising costs are just coming home to roost, and they’re hitting Main Street.”

Minnesota shares a 547-mile border with Canada. Blaha said the state’s crucial agricultural industry is especially threatened as businesses constantly send products back and forth for processing. She highlighted General Mills, the maker of well-known cereals, including Cheerios. The firm buys Canadian grain that is processed in Minneapolis before being distributed to domestic cereal plants and sold across the U.S. and Canada. 

Grain is not on Canada’s list of targeted products for retaliatory tariffs, but the country did enact new tariffs on agricultural equipment, dairy and other food products. 

“These tariffs have a bigger impact than just one just one hit on a price,” she said. 

Canada’s political pressure

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs were aimed at pressuring the White House by targeting certain states and industries.

“We’re being wise and strategic to put political pressure,” Canada’s Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said last week. 

Canadian data show countermeasures will hit Ohio harder than any other state, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported. Ohio is home to one of the most competitive Senate races this cycle as Republican Sen. Jon Husted defends his seat from former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. 

Husted has largely defended Trump’s tariffs in the Senate. In an August interview with MS Now, he acknowledged the president’s decision-making was not in line with how he would negotiate, but declined to second guess Trump’s stance on Canada. 

Canadian tariffs to further raise prices, a top concern for voters

“It depends on how it ends,” the senator said. “If we get a good deal, both Canada and America can come out of this well, but it’s going to require both sides.”

Canada is Ohio’s biggest export market, sending $17.5 billion in goods across the border — roughly a third of the state’s total exports. More than half of the state’s exports to Canada come from the equipment and machinery and the transportation industries. Ohio is a leading producer of automobiles, an industry deeply affected by tariffs because of interconnected supply chains that span American, Canadian and Mexican factories. 

Trump’s tariff “decision is going to make it very difficult for folks in the automobile supply chain to be able to succeed in Ohio,” Rob Moore, principal at public policy firm Scioto Analysis, told the Ohio Capital Journal.

While Canada’s countermeasures were politically targeted, they will sweep across the country, affecting solidly conservative and liberal states. 

Connecticut State Treasurer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said the trade war will especially hurt New England states that trade more with Canada. He said the tariffs could raise prices of everything from electricity to consumer goods. 

Though tariffs will hit businesses and consumers first, Russell said they will eventually put more strain on local and state government budgets.

And the president’s on-and-off-again history with imposing and rescinding tariffs injects more uncertainty for both business and government, he said.

“Where things are right now, there isn’t any certainty or clarity around where this is ultimately going to land,” he said. “What is consistent through all of this is that consumers in Connecticut and all across the country are going to continue to pay for this tariff war.”

Concerns across New England states

The trade standoff could further hurt New England’s tourism industry that depends on steady Canadian traffic. 

In New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont, tourism is big business year-round as travelers flock to beaches in the summer, leaf peeping in the autumn and skiing in the winter. Those businesses have suffered a drop in Canadian visitors amid Trump’s ongoing aggression with the country.

Steve Wright, general manager of Jay Peak Resort in Vermont’s Green Mountains, recently assured Canadians that they were welcome to the resort that sits just a few miles from the border and a roughly two-hour drive from Montreal.

“The border may feel different right now,” Wright wrote online. “We do not. You are our neighbors. You are our friends. You are part of this place.” 

Vermont Republican Gov. Phil Scott recently characterized the president’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America as “petty and disappointing.” Scott, who is favored in polls to win reelection in November, said the trade war harms communities on both sides of the border.

“Further escalating tensions does nothing to help American or Canadian families and businesses,” he added. 

In neighboring Maine, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins has criticized the tariffs and urged the administration to resolve its dispute with Canada. A Republican in a competitive race for reelection, Collins grew up just 20 miles from the Canadian border. 

Troy Jackson, her Democratic opponent, has blamed Collins for not stopping Trump’s trade policies. 

Last week, Collins told reporters that the White House viewed tariffs in a macro sense without appreciating how damaging they are to border states such as Maine. Collins said Trump’s tariffs were already hurting local governments that rely on Canada for imported salt to treat roads in winter and could further hurt the state’s crucial lumber and blueberry industries.

While Maine’s important lobster industry was spared retaliatory tariffs, Canada did impose 50% tariffs on wood products and agricultural products. 

“Canada is not China. It is not an adversarial nation,” Collins said. “It is our closest ally, our neighbor, our friend. And our economy is so intertwined with Canada that I am very worried about what the impact will be.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Labor union membership continues to climb in the United States, though the increase remains sharply divided by the politics of individual states.

Last year, the nation added more than 411,000 union members — the largest annual growth since 2008, according to a study published just ahead of the Labor Day holiday by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute and the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

At the end of last year, more than 14.6 million American workers belonged to a union — about 10% of the workforce, the study said. 

While union membership grew across the country, the State of the Unions report found that states that have sought to protect or strengthen collective bargaining rights added three times as many union members as so-called right-to-work states, which prohibit mandatory union membership or dues as conditions of employment.

“What seems to be the number one driver is the state of the state,” said one of the study authors, Robert Bruno, who leads the labor education program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “If the policy is anti-union, it suppresses worker will. Where the law allows worker will to flourish, as I would argue it should, then you see higher numbers. So you can’t ignore politics. You can’t ignore policy.” 

State governments are nearly evenly divided on labor policy, with 26 states having right-to-work laws. Union membership rates sit at about 14% in collective bargaining states and 5% in right-to-work states, the study found.

The study shows that workers in collective bargaining states earn significantly more than those in other states. After adjusting for cost of living variances, the report calculated average hourly earnings of $34.16 in right-to-work states and $37.24 in collective bargaining states.

Union density is nowhere close to its record high. In 1954, more than a third of American workers belonged to unions. Today, that rate is about 10%.  And unions face major policy headwinds at the state and federal levels. In recent years, Southern states have passed new laws aimed at curbing union expansion. And President Donald Trump has sought to strip collective bargaining rights from more than 1 million federal workers. 

Researchers said it’s unclear how federal actions will affect union membership figures. Many of the president’s moves are being litigated in courts and more federal workers have sought to unionize under this administration. 

But public support for labor unions is growing among Republicans and Democrats, Gallup polling shows. 

“More Americans are turning to unions as a bulwark against the rising cost of living, and more public sector workers turned towards unions last year in the wake of some federal actions and federal headwinds,” said State of the Unions coauthor Frank Manzo IV, an economist at the left-leaning Illinois Economic Policy Institute. 

Conservatives have long argued that unions’ benefit on wage growth has been overstated by pro-labor interests. 

In a 2025 review of 147 studies, researchers at the free-market think tank Mercatus Center concluded that powerful labor unions can lead to slower job growth and fewer jobs for unionized workers, reduce company investments in research and development, and increase the likelihood of company closures. 

Researchers at the George Mason University think tank said the difference between the wages of unionized workers and nonunionized workers has declined in recent years and may even be negligible. 

“When powerful and adversarial unions operate with government-granted monopoly privileges and press for unsustainable terms, it can backfire and result in lost jobs and fewer opportunities for workers,” that report said.

This year, state lawmakers passed dozens of bills seeking to boost worker protections across 19 states, according to tracking by State Futures, a nonprofit coordinating hundreds of Democratic lawmakers across the states.

Those measures included three bills aimed at expanding collective bargaining.

Illinois lawmakers granted rideshare and gig drivers the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Washington state extended collective bargaining rights to certain university student employees.

And Virginia lawmakers approved a measure to repeal the state’s longstanding ban on public-sector collective bargaining. That would have expanded the possibility of union membership to half a million public employees in the commonwealth. But Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger vetoed that measure in May. 

The governor said she agreed with the goal of expanding collective bargaining rights. But she urged the legislature to adopt specific amendments, including delaying provisions of the bill until 2030 and shifting authority over how the system operates to a state board. 

“While preserving the enrolled bill’s focus on allowing public employees to achieve collective bargaining, my amendments would have also provided additional flexibility for public employers to take into account existing local budget timelines and processes,” Spanberger wrote in her veto message. “However, the General Assembly rejected these amendments.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.