On Labor Day 2025, the streets of major American cities reverberated with the chants of thousands demanding a more equitable economic system, as workers and activists rallied against policies seen as favoring billionaires and undermining public services. From the bustling neighborhoods of Brooklyn to the vibrant Mission District of San Francisco, a wave of protests swept the nation, crystallizing long-simmering frustrations over the structure of American markets, labor laws, and tax policies.
In Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, on May 29, 2025, New Yorkers gathered outside the office of House Representative Nicole Malliotakis, expressing outrage over her vote in favor of the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. According to Dean Baker’s Beat the Press, this legislation contained severe cuts to federally funded social services like healthcare, housing, and food assistance, while simultaneously granting significant tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations. Protesters held signs and voiced their anger at what they saw as a blatant redistribution of wealth upward, a theme echoed in demonstrations across the country.
The following week, similar sentiments took center stage in San Francisco, where hundreds—possibly up to a thousand—marched down Mission Street to Dolores Park in the "Workers Over Billionaires" march. As reported by ABC 7 and the San Francisco Chronicle, the rally was the largest since June’s No Kings protests and was organized by the national May Day Strong Coalition. The event drew union members and leaders, including teachers, city workers, and federal employees, all united in their call for economic justice.
Andy Beetley, representing the service workers' union SEIU 1021, captured the mood of the crowd: "Labor power and power of the people against a government that is not only corrupt but also seems help destroy everything good that we have created with this country. This is the least we can do." For many, Labor Day was not just a day off—it was a time to stand up and be counted. Jodie Sheffels, a math and science teacher at Bessie Carmichael School, told the gathering, "You know educators love a three-day weekend. But today is not just a holiday for us… We are here as workers and educators to stand up to Trump and the billionaires."
The protests were not limited to New York and San Francisco. The Associated Press reported large labor demonstrations in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland. In Portland, protester Lynda Oakley summed up the exasperation of many: "I am done with what's happening in our country." These rallies, organized by groups such as One Fair Wage, were united in their opposition to policies perceived as attacking workers’ rights, public services, and vulnerable communities, with chants of "Trump must go now!" and "No National Guard."
State Senator Scott Wiener, present at the San Francisco march, did not mince words: "Donald Trump is trying to destroy our democracy. He is trying to destroy unions, destroy workers and empower the larger cooperation in the world and he is creating a secret police to mass deport immigrants. Immigrants who have built this country. When you look at how authoritarian regimes end its because people mobilize there is a mass mobilization."
Underlying these protests is a deeper critique of how American markets and laws have been structured to benefit the wealthy. As Dean Baker’s Beat the Press explains, government-granted patent and copyright monopolies alone redistribute over $1 trillion each year upward—an amount equivalent to about $8,000 per household. These monopolies, designed to incentivize innovation and creativity, have grown longer and stronger over time, concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. Baker argues that capitalism could function with shorter, weaker monopolies, or even alternative mechanisms to support innovation, but the current structure overwhelmingly favors the rich.
Labor law, too, is seen as tilted against workers. The prohibition on secondary boycotts, for example, prevents unions from picketing at a company’s suppliers or customers, sharply limiting their leverage. Right to work laws, prevalent in many states, prohibit unions from requiring all workers to pay union fees—even with employer agreement—a policy Baker frames as a violation of freedom of contract. "The government has a hands-off attitude towards the conditions that employers impose on their workers," he writes, "but if workers choose to unionize and want to have everyone at the workplace share in the cost of supporting the union, the government in most states says they can’t."
Corporate law is another area where the deck appears stacked. The legal structure of corporations, particularly the creation of S-corporations and limited liability companies, allows many of the richest Americans to avoid paying corporate income tax. Originally intended for small businesses, S-corporations now often shelter the wealth of hedge funds, private equity firms, and other large enterprises. Baker points out that there is no inherent reason for the government to grant limited liability without requiring payment of corporate income tax, yet the rules have evolved to do just that.
Private equity firms, in particular, have become adept at exploiting bankruptcy laws. Their business model often involves acquiring companies, stripping them of assets, loading them with debt, and profiting regardless of the outcome—whether the company survives or goes bankrupt. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Stop Wall Street Looting Act, which would have made private equity firms liable for the debts of their portfolio companies, was proposed as a remedy, but has yet to become law.
The digital age has introduced new complexities. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields social media platforms—like those owned by Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk—from liability for defamatory content posted by users. In contrast, traditional media can be held accountable, as when Fox paid $787 million to Dominion for promoting false claims about the 2020 election. While some argue that platforms cannot possibly monitor all user content, others, including Baker, suggest reforms are possible, such as requiring timely response to takedown notices or limiting protections to platforms that do not rely on advertising or personal data sales.
At the heart of these debates is the relationship between wealth and power. As Baker observes, "massive inequality of wealth also translates into massive inequality of power. The billionaires won’t nicely agree to have their massive wealth taxed." The protests of Labor Day 2025, then, were not just about taxes or social services—they were about the very rules that govern American society and who gets to write them.
While the calls for taxing billionaires grow louder, many activists and economists argue that deeper reforms are needed to prevent so much wealth from accumulating at the top in the first place. As the summer of protest continues, the question remains: will the rules of the American economy be rewritten, or will the status quo prevail?
