The National Labor Relations Board is dismissing worker and union unfair labor practice charges at higher rates under President Donald Trump, according to a new analysis that raises concerns about the strength of federal labor enforcement.
The analysis, conducted by the Center for American Progress, reviewed more than 40,000 cases filed with the NLRB between January 2025 and April 29, 2026. It found that the agency dismissed 34.7% of unfair labor practice charges filed by labor unions during that period, up 14.2% from 2024. Charges filed directly by workers were dismissed at an even higher rate, with 67.4% thrown out, a 10.7% increase from the previous year.
Unfair labor practice charges are complaints alleging that employers or unions violated federal labor law. Workers may file them if they believe they were fired, disciplined, threatened or otherwise punished for organizing, supporting a union or exercising workplace rights. Unions may also file charges when they believe employers are interfering with organizing drives or refusing to bargain in good faith.
The NLRB declined to comment on the findings, according to reporting on the analysis.
TRENDING TODAY
The increase in dismissals comes during a turbulent period for the labor board. After Trump returned to office, the NLRB was left without a quorum for nearly a year following the firing of board member Gwynne Wilcox. Without a quorum, the board could not issue final decisions in many cases, leaving appeals and disputes unresolved.
Labor advocates say the lack of a functioning board weakened enforcement at a time when many workers were trying to organize. They also point to staffing shortages, budget pressure and new case-handling procedures as possible reasons more complaints are being dismissed before they move forward.
One major concern involves procedural changes adopted by the agency. Under revised intake rules, people filing charges may be required to provide supporting evidence within a short period after filing. Supporters of stricter procedures may argue that they help the agency manage its workload and avoid weak cases. Critics say the rules can be difficult for ordinary workers to navigate, especially those without legal help.
That matters because many workers who file complaints are not labor lawyers. They may be warehouse workers, baristas, drivers, healthcare employees, retail staff or office workers trying to understand a complex federal system while also dealing with job pressure. If the process becomes more technical, workers with fewer resources may be more likely to lose their claims early.
The analysis also fits into a broader decline in formal union activity before the NLRB. A separate Center for American Progress review found that NLRB-overseen union elections fell by 30% in 2025 compared with 2024, while the number of workers voting in those elections dropped by 42%. That does not necessarily mean worker interest in unions disappeared, but it suggests the official path to union elections became less active.
The Trump administration and many business groups have generally argued for a more employer-friendly approach to labor law, saying the previous NLRB moved too aggressively and created uncertainty for companies. Employers often complain that labor rules can be complicated, costly and tilted against management.
Labor groups see the situation very differently. They argue that workers already face major obstacles when organizing, including fear of retaliation, delays in the legal process and limited penalties for employers found to have violated the law. From that perspective, a higher dismissal rate could discourage workers from filing complaints at all.
For businesses, the shift could mean fewer labor cases moving into litigation and faster resolution of some disputes. But for workers, it may mean less confidence that the federal government will step in when they believe their rights have been violated.
The larger question is whether the NLRB is becoming more efficient or less accessible. If the agency is dismissing weaker complaints faster, supporters may describe that as better case management. If valid complaints are being lost because of technical rules, staffing problems or delays, critics will argue that workers are being denied meaningful enforcement.
Either way, the issue goes beyond unions. The NLRB’s role affects wages, workplace organizing, employer conduct and the balance of power between companies and employees. When enforcement changes, the impact can be felt not only by union campaigns but also by workers deciding whether it is safe to speak up.
Why It Matters
The findings matter because the NLRB is the main federal agency responsible for protecting private-sector workers’ organizing rights. If more complaints are dismissed before they move forward, workers may have fewer practical tools to challenge alleged retaliation or employer interference.
This also affects employers and the broader economy. Clear labor rules can help businesses avoid legal uncertainty, but weak enforcement may increase workplace tension and discourage collective bargaining. For ordinary workers, the issue is simple: whether the law actually protects them when they report unfair treatment.
What Comes Next
Labor advocates are likely to push for closer scrutiny of the NLRB’s staffing levels, procedures and dismissal patterns. Congress may also face renewed pressure to examine whether budget cuts and vacancies have weakened the agency’s ability to enforce labor law.
The Trump administration is expected to continue reshaping federal labor policy through appointments, guidance and procedural changes. Future data will show whether the rise in dismissals is a temporary result of disruption at the agency or a longer-term shift in how worker and union complaints are handled.
