Ambassador Nikki Haley: Walking the Tightrope on Human Rights

One of our key inquiries on the subject of human rights in the Gender Policy Report is how the face of U.S. diplomacy will be transformed by the Trump Administration. Of particular interest are key changes in U.S. institutions and personnel, which signal a shift on international protections for human rights and gender equality around the world. This inquiry leads us to the most prominent female presence in foreign policy, Nikki Haley, confirmed by the Senate on January 24, 2017, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.


Climate and Environmental Policy in Trump’s First 100 Days: A Summary through a Gender Lens

Of all the actions President Trump has taken in his chaotic first months in office, moving to roll back the previous administration’s environmental and climate rules may have the greatest impact on future generations. Against the overwhelming evidence, scientific consensus, and trends in public opinion, Trump threatens to dramatically reshape climate and environmental policies – many of which will lead to disparate outcomes for men and women. The Trump Administration has made announcements and taken actions to slow or repeal Obama-era environmental protections related to coal mining waste, clean water, oil and gas drilling, vehicle emissions, and power plant carbon dioxide emissions. By some estimates, Trump rolled back 23 environmental rules in his first 100 days. The Administration has also removed information on climate change from EPA websites, proposed a budget that would significantly cut back federal funding for environmental protection and clean energy research, made significant cuts to the scientific advisory boards to the EPA, and nominated individuals with notable anti-environmental regulation positions for key regulatory positions.


Gender and the First 100 days of Health Policy

This past March, Republican Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill) took issue with “men having to purchase prenatal care” in a House Committee debate over revisions to the Affordable Care Act.  Just this week, Representative Paul Labrador of Idaho faced angry constituents over his support of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that narrowly passed in a 217 to 213 House vote on May 4. When someone told him that the House bill sends the signal to people on Medicaid to “accept dying,” Labrador impatiently responded, “That line is so indefensible. Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.” These statements get to the heart of two characteristics central to this administration’s and the 115th Congress’ approach to health care policy in its first 100 days: individualization and androcentrism. Both characteristics are bad news for gender equity – and ultimately, families and the economy.

A focus on the individual seems neutral, but in fact ends up favoring male-bodied, white, heterosexual, and wealthy individuals over others.

The individual focus is most clearly observed in the administration’s attempts to reform the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and especially in the version of the AHCA just passed in the House. Through the multiple changes it proposes to the current ACA, the AHCA takes a sledgehammer to the concept of collective responsibility for health, where the healthy and the young help pay for the aged and the sick, knowing that when they are ill or old, they too will be covered. Indeed, while those supporting this latest health bill insist that coverage will remain similar to what it is now under the ACA, the realities of the bill suggest otherwise. They suggest not only that potentially millions will lose access to health care – 24 million according to the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of an earlier version of the AHCA – but that those likely to be more significantly impacted include women, LGBTQ communities, the elderly, and historically disadvantaged populations.

Central to the AHCA is removing the individual mandate to carry insurance. Aside from the facts that the individual mandate is key to insurance market stability and that the uninsured end up being costly to taxpayers, the individual “choice” to not carry health insurance is highly gender and race inequitable. Only the healthiest and wealthiest in society  –and those without dependents and who cannot get pregnant– can really afford to risk not being insured. Given social and environmental inequities, racial and ethnic minorities tend to suffer poorer health status than whites. These groups, and women overall, are disproportionately represented among those living in poverty. Meanwhile, the AHCA proposes tax incentives for individual health savings accounts; further encouraging health care to become a “go it alone” endeavor.

The AHCA also repeals part of the ACA’s “community rating” system, which prevents variation of premiums based on age, gender, health status and other factors. Under the ACA, insurers cannot charge women more than men and they cannot charge the elderly more than three times what they charge younger individuals. The AHCA would allow insurers to charge the elderly five times the rates for younger people. Since women typically live longer than men, they would be more significantly impacted by this change.

While in the March negotiations, the essential benefits requirement was substantially weakened, the version passed by the House on May 4 would allow states to waive essential health benefits and decide whether or not to require insurers to cover preexisting conditions; a move opposed by hospitals, doctors and insurers, but approved by the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

The waivers further emphasize individualism, and also androcentrism. The androcentrism is particularly acute when it comes to waiving essential health benefits which include denial of reproductive health care.

This clearly impacts women seeking prenatal care and maternity care, but in turn it also affects infant health in a country already showing shameful infant mortality statistics relative to other high-income countries. It would also impact trans men and women seeking care that is appropriate to their health needs and nonjudgmental. Apart from potential loss of maternity and prenatal coverage should states implement essential benefits waivers, the AHCA also disallows the premium tax credit (a credit that makes it more affordable for low to moderate income people to afford individual insurance) if the policy covers abortion services. Similarly, it disallows small businesses from claiming an expense credit if they offer their employees insurance plans that include abortion.

Making insurance financially out of reach for those with preexisting conditions or not covering them at all would be felt across multiple spectrums, including anyone who has chronic or terminal illnesses, mental health diagnoses, or disabilities.

These waivers would also more heavily impact those populations at higher risk of particular diseases. A comprehensive recent study of breast cancer mortality rates by Sinai Urban Health Institute, for example, found not only that black women die at higher rates than white women, but that the disparity over the last decade has grown. In fact nationally, black women were 43% more likely to die of breast cancer than their white counterparts. Though exact causes of the disparity are not clear, late-diagnosis and late treatment – both indicative of inadequate access to health care – are thought to play major roles. HIV/AIDS has fallen from many people’s radar, but not for trans women and gay men. Trans women are three times more likely than the national average to test positive for HIV according the CDC, and just over half of those testing positive are African American. In a 2013 testing of 2,705 trans women, 22% were HIV positive. Gay and bisexual men remain the most at risk of a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS. Again according to the CDC, 54% of those newly diagnosed with AIDS were gay or bisexual men or men having sex with men; and again, a majority were African American.

Other than these more evident categories, specifics on what might constitute pre-existing conditions in the AHCA are sparse, and insurers might have leeway in determining them.

Before the ACA, though, pre-existing conditions included having had a cesarean section, rape, domestic violence, or pregnancy, leading one news analyst to state that just being a woman in essence constitutes a pre-existing condition given the high percentage of women in the US who have experienced at least one of these.

The newest version of the AHCA also cuts back substantially the amount of federal funding for state Medicaid programs, threatening millions of poor Americans with lapse in coverage. When the ACA was passed, minority populations were the ones who achieved the most gains in insurance coverage, narrowing considerably the gap between levels of health insurance among whites versus nonwhites. Women had the most gains, in large part because of their higher poverty rates. Before the major expansion of coverage under the ACA, 40% of low-income women were uninsured. By 2015, however, a study by the National Women’s Law Center found that 90% of women in most states had coverage, and women of color in particular had double-digit gains. The same study now estimates that 8 million women are at risk of losing insurance coverage under the AHCA, two-thirds of these, women of color.

In the AHCA and other legislation, the Trump administration also sought to “defund” Planned Parenthood under the specious idea that this will prevent abortion; even though federal funding for abortion services has long been disallowed.  The current AHCA bill contains language that would deny federal Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood for one year. On April 13, the President signed a bill into law that would allow states to withhold Federal Title X payments to qualified providers of pregnancy, breast and cervical cancer screenings. This move will undermine Title X, a program developed by the Nixon administration to extend family planning to low income individuals. And we may well see higher rates of unplanned pregnancies, rates that we have seen drop particularly among Latinas with both Title X and the ACA regulation that requires contraceptive coverage.

Considering the overall context — the Planned Parenthood legislation, along with  the Trump administration’s early executive order to reinstate the “global gag” rule that forbids global reproductive health organizations that receive US funding to even mention abortion, and its withdrawal of funding for the United Nations Population Fund based on the erroneous claim that it supports coercive abortions in China —

it appears that individual “choice” of health care options only applies to some individuals and reinforces the idea that non-male bodies are outside the norm and subject to control.

In a study published this month examining inequalities in life expectancy by county across the US, authors found that not only are disparities growing wider among Americans, but that there are counties where life expectancy is actually going down. Lowest life expectancies, which were found in South Dakota Indian reservations and parts of the South, were only in the 60s. Though many factors were examined, socio-economic status and access to adequate and quality health care played vital roles. This is important information to have, but it isn’t new to note that poverty and lack of access to good quality health care both play pivotal roles in keeping Americans healthy, or not.

We know, in other words, that people do die when they don’t have access to health care, and that making health insurance unavailable or too expensive for millions will make health disparities worse instead of better and will have grossly uneven impact across individuals.

Republican health care policy in the first 100 days of the 45th Presidency has relied on the fallacious ideas that individuals can be entirely self-reliant and that care should be tailored to only a narrow group ­– those that fit an able bodied, white, heterosexual, self-ascribed male norm.

But that’s not how the world really works. Nor is it a good long-term strategy for supporting families and the economy.  No one should be sent a signal from our government to accept dying earlier because they’re poor, to adjust to realities of persistent ill health, or to give up on the idea of affordable health insurance because they have had children or experienced sexual assault.

We live in an interconnected world where increasing the health and well-being of everyone benefits all. To give one example: moms with maternity and prenatal care have healthier babies that become the productive workers of tomorrow, and in a collective insurance environment like that under the ACA, these workers support the health needs of the aged and sick, until the cycle begins again. The ACA is not perfect, but reform should focus on reinforcing and improving beneficial cycles like these, rather than promoting devolution to an inefficient, fend-for-yourself model that will only harm millions and the long term prospects for our country’s prosperity.

Susan Craddock, Professor of Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies; Global Studies; and Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota.

Christina Ewig, Professor of Public Affairs and Director of the Center on Women, Gender and Public Policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

–Photo by Quinn Dombrowski

A Retreat from International Human Rights is not Gender-neutral

In its first 100 days, the Trump administration’s “America First” rhetoric and actions have led to an increased focus on national security and a retreat from international institutions. In particular, these early days have been marked by disengagement from or attacks on international human rights systems that play a key role in the protection of women’s rights.

For all their shortcomings—including their own historic gender biases—international human rights norms and institutions provide an advocacy space for groups whose dignity, worth, agency, or security have been systematically undermined by state policy and practice. This has been especially true for the rights of women. We have observed retreats from human rights at home, from human rights in foreign policy, and from the spaces and practices designed to uphold women’s rights globally. Here, we highlight some of the human rights effects of the fledgling administration’s actions—and inactions.


Retreat from human rights at home

Trump administration policies have eroded human rights within the United States. For instance, just days after his inauguration, President Trump authorized the US Army Corps of Engineers to grant an easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline to pass beneath Lake Oahe and the Missouri River, ignoring the sovereign rights of the Standing Rock Sioux regarding the threat to clean water for their indigenous community. Indigenous women are not backing down from this fight. They continue to lead their communities in struggles for land rights, cultural restoration, and environmental justice.

Early April saw another threat to existing human rights protections when Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of all consent decrees adopted to decrease the discriminatory practices of U.S. police departments. When U.S. District Judge James Bredar upheld the consent decree between the Baltimore PD and the Justice Department, Sessions blasted the ruling, suggesting that the decree would “reduce the lawful powers of the police department and result in a less safe city.” But the Baltimore consent decree had resulted from a year-long DOJ investigation that found widespread racial bias, use of excessive force, repeated patterns of unconstitutional arrests, and hostility toward women and LGBT civilians. Rescinding the consent decree would be more likely to result in “a less safe city” for people of color, including women of color.

And the Trump travel ban drew widespread condemnation as a violation of human rights. Four UN Special Rapporteurs (along with other UN bodies) found that the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order “breaches the country’s international human rights obligations, which protect the principles of non-refoulement and non-discrimination based on race, nationality or religion.”

The push to roll back health guarantees also runs contrary to established international human rights standards related to the right to health and the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and non-regression. We learned through a document leaked to Dana Milbink of the Washington Post that the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health sent a confidential urgent appeal to the Trump administration on the human rights implications of its various proposals to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, especially highlighting the disparate impact on people living in situations of poverty and social exclusion.


Disregard for human rights in foreign policy

An emerging foreign policy conveys a disregard for human rights standards in favor of “national security”. First, the Trump team has embraced Heads of States known for serious human rights violations while ignoring those issues, including those of Egypt, Pakistan, China, Russia, and most recently, the Philippines. In explaining his “very friendly conversation” with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, whom he welcomed to the White House despite UN, EU, and U.S. condemnations of his brutality toward his own people, Trump suggested that the strategic and military importance of the Philippines in relation to North Korean aggressions outweighed other considerations. Incongruously, Trump also welcomed a meeting with “smart cookie” Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s despotic leader. The strategic security interest of these moves remains questionable.

Bombing is another favored “security” tactic. An increase U.S.-led airstrikes has led to civilian casualties in Mosul, Syria, and Yemen. A January 30th airstrike in rural Yemen, for instance, killed approximately thirty, including ten women and children. The Trump administration has lowered the threshold for the CIA and the U.S. military to target identified terrorists with drone strikes, even if it means tolerating more civilian casualties.


Disengaging from international women’s human rights

Disengagement from international institutions that uphold human rights and a withdrawal from its leadership role on international women’s rights characterize the new face of U.S. human rights policy under President Trump. The Trump administration even threatened withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, before ultimately attending and promoting its particular priorities at the 34th session in Geneva in March. Another notable indication of a retreat from leadership on women’s rights (as we feared in our opening post for Gender Policy Report) came from a leaked budget suggesting that the administration plans to cut all funding for State Department’s Office of Global Women’s Issues.

While Ambassador Nikki Haley has asserted herself as the highest profile woman in the Administration—outside the Trump family circle—she apparently had too high a profile for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. He recently reined her in, asking her to vet her public remarks.

The Administration also put some problematic new faces on the U.S. delegation to the 61st Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, held in March at U.N. Headquarters in New York. Joining Ambassador Haley on the delegation were Lisa Correnti, Executive VP of C-Fam (the Center for Family & Human Rights), a group that opposes reproductive rights for women and supports the criminalization of homosexuality, and Grace Melton of the Heritage Foundation. According to Graeme Reid at Human Rights Watch, C-Fam is an “ardent supporter” of Russia’s propaganda law against LGBT persons. In fact, following the Commission, C-Fam went on to celebrate that the UN meeting was frustrated, that no final agreement was reached, and that the delegation from the Russian Federation shared their stance on sexual and LGBT rights.

On March 30, the Trump Administration cut all funding to the U.N. Population Fund for Women (UNFPA), a dramatic reduction that, according to U.N. Foundation President and CEO Kathy Calvin, “threatens the health and rights of millions of girls and women around the world, particularly those in crisis situations.” Women around the world rely on the UNFPA for reproductive health care, including contraceptives, support for the prevention of child marriage, and ending the practice of female genital mutilation.

Secretary of State Tillerson’s failure to show up for the public release of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, mandated annually by Congress, underlined his disregard for human rights. Even Republican Senator Marco Rubio was taken aback by this breach of precedent, remarking that he was “disappointed that the Secretary of State did not personally present the latest report.” When the U.S. failed to appear for its hearings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, reviewing the situation of the Dakota Access pipeline and the administration’s immigration restrictions, that, too, was unprecedented.


These examples demonstrate the Administration’s broad trend to disengage from or actively undermine international human rights standards—with women’s rights particularly hard-hit. In just 100 days, human rights have been tossed aside in favor of the appearance of military might. And with its retreat from international institutions and human rights norms both at home and abroad, the new Administration’s actions and omissions are dramatically diminishing protections for the human rights of women and LGBTI persons in favor of big talk, big guns, and big money.


— Robyn Skrebes, Amanda Lyons (Co-director of the Human Rights Center), Karen Brown (Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Global Change) and Barb Frey (Director of the Human Rights Program) at the University of Minnesota

Photo by UN Geneva

100 Days for Labor and Family: Promised, Proposed and Passed

The Trump administration began with high expectations for job creation through protectionism and infrastructure development, reform of family leave and child care policies, and tax and regulation reforms aimed at stimulating economic growth.  Little of that agenda has been implemented, yet clear patterns have emerged with important implications for gender justice and equality.  This article examines policies related to Labor and Family that have been promised, proposed and passed.

The most immediate developments occurred in federal employment and contracting, where a hiring freeze and the repeal of fair pay and workplace safety and health rules will disproportionately affect women.

Trump’s budget proposal promises to slash employment in federal agencies, where women predominate, while shifting resources toward traditionally male employment sectors such as military, law enforcement, and construction.  The budget also dropped Trump’s campaign promise of a $1 trillion investment in transportation, housing, and other infrastructure, which, if coupled with vigorous recruitment and retention programs, had the potential to benefit women as well as men.

The appointment of Ivanka Trump to a formal position in the White House sustains hope for innovation on family leave and other work-life policies, although we have no concrete proposals or statements of support from the President or Congress.  And, while criticism of low wages and poor working conditions in the fast-food industry helped undermine Trump’s first choice to head the Department of Labor, his second nomination and subsequent statements show little support for policies aimed at improving wages and working conditions in this or other heavily female employment sectors.

In its first hundred days, the Trump administration echoed a narrowly gendered conception of Labor and Family that the President had articulated during the campaign.

His first official statements withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and froze hiring in federal positions outside the military and public safety.   Jane Lawrence Summer points out that protectionist campaign rhetoric appealed to a particularly male concern for the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs, although it is unclear whether those can be restored through changes in trade policy. The hiring freeze, however, had an immediate impact on an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 jobs held disproportionately by women.

The Administration’s emphasis on manufacturing, military, and law enforcement jobs reinforces a broader pattern of devaluing service and caring jobs that have historically been reserved for women.  For example, in late February, officials at two U.S. Army bases announced that on-base day care centers would be closed “as a result of staff shortage due to the federal hiring freeze.”  When it was pointed out that the freeze had actually exempted “positions providing child care to the children of military personnel,” base commanders explained that the staffing problems were caused by delays in background checks, medical exams, and other administrative jobs that were affected by the freeze.  The administration had recognized that child-care workers contributed to national security (an advance of sorts, no doubt), but not that health and clerical workers were vital, too.

In addition to shaping job creation policies, this gendered conception of the workforce informed the Trump administration’s approach to workplace rights and protections.

As the President committed to trade policies that would “promote American industry, protect American workers, and raise American wages,” he showed little inclination to improve wages or working conditions through regulation (he is, after all, a proponent of slashing regulations). In nominating fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder to head the Department of Labor and proposing a 20% cut to that department’s budget, Trump’s administration revealed a deep aversion toward labor protections that are particularly important for low-wage, mostly female, workers in service and retail.  The recently unveiled budget bill spares the Department of Labor from the most dramatic cuts, but slashes funding for job training and placement programs that, Debra Fitzpatrick points out, have previously been important routes for women and non-white workers into the construction jobs that Trump proposes to create through infrastructure development.

As part of that broader effort to repeal regulations enacted by the Obama administration, Trump also signed bills loosening restrictions on federal contractors with records of wage theft and workplace health and safety violations.  The administration’s opposition to workplace regulations also raises the stakes for local debates over the minimum wage and work requirements for food stamps and unemployment benefits.

One area where the Administration has displayed a more flexible conception of labor and family has been family leave and child care, perhaps because these issues have been relatively low priorities and because they have been pushed by the President’s daughter and advisor, Ivanka Trump.

During the campaign, candidate Trump promoted a plan, developed by his daughter, to provide workers six-weeks of paid maternity leave and an income tax deduction for child care expenses.  Still, by restricting the program to mothers and funding it through tax cuts and reductions in other programs, the proposal reflected the candidate’s conservative ideas about both gender and fiscal policy.

Since the inauguration, the administration has expanded the proposed leave policy to include fathers and unveiled a more specific plan for child care; it has met resistance on account of its high costs and because it benefits high-income families over the poor.  Ivanka Trump’s newly formalized White House position could give her more influence, and her office recently floated an expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Credit, which would benefit low-income parents more than a tax credit. It is unclear whether Congress or the President would support the change.


In summary, we can divide the administration’s actions on Labor and Family into three categories: promised, proposed, and passed.  They promised job creation in traditionally male sectors such as manufacturing and construction, with the possibility of opening those jobs to previously excluded workers and delivering egalitarian outcomes in leave and child-care policies.  Those promises were partially undermined by a proposed budget that emphasizes cuts to federal employment without increased infrastructure investments, and passed appointments and executive orders that slash workplace protections and anti-discrimination policies for both public and private sector workers.  The administration has, thus far, failed to pass the massive promised tax cuts aimed at stimulating economic growth.  Its first 100 days have built on Trump’s campaign, projecting both heady rhetoric and a high level of uncertainty about its approach to Labor and Family.

— William P. Jones is a Professor of History at the University of Minnesota

— Photo by Department of Business, Innovation and Skills

A Memestorm That Will Make You Think: “Wow, Trade and Investment Policy Is Inherently Gendered!”


The Trump Administration has made reductions in regulations a priority. Deregulation can be  popular, since some see regulations only as hindrances, unnecessary restrictions that slow economic growth and hurt job creation. Yet while regulations do limit what businesses can do and may cost them money, they are typically put in place to protect people, whether workers or consumers. The Administration’s stated goal of eliminating two regulations for every new regulation enacted might, then, have very negative consequences for workplace safety. These consequences may be especially deleterious for women, who are more likely to be found in occupations such as nursing, caretaking, and administration, which are not seen as “dangerous” jobs, but involve a tremendous number of injuries every year.

5. #BorderTax #CantStopWontStop #RobotUprising

The Administration aims to increase exports and reduce imports, and one lever they hope to use is a “Border Tax”. The argument is that American jobs are being shipped abroad to countries, such as Mexico, that pay lower wages, but the specifics, pros, and cons of this protectionist policy is a great mystery to most non-economists. Further, a border tax cannot stop automation, arguably a bigger threat to Americans’ jobs than inter-national wage disparities. Offshoring and automation are often seen as “men’s issues,” tied to old-fashioned manufacturing jobs, but offshoring and automation both threaten women as well.

4. #SameSameLaborStandards #EvenGenderEquality?

Following through on campaign promises, Trump has put re-opening negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) front and center with both Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau and Mexican President Peña Nieto. Despite this attention, formal talks are not exactly imminent and there is considerable uncertainty surrounding what Trump will seek should they come to pass. One upside is that negotiations will likely involve the strengthening of labor standards, with demands for more stringent standards regarding minimum wages, union organizing rights, and workplace safety, in a bid to make American workers more competitive. Re-negotiations could feasibly seek to incorporate standards contained in the largely unenforceable side-agreement – the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation – which calls on parties to promote cooperative activities regarding gender equality in the workplace; eliminating employment discrimination, including gender-based; and requiring equal pay for women and men.

3. #KOforTPP? #IDK.

Largely a symbolic move on the part of the Trump administration, the executive order “unsigning” the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was met by glee on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, as an opening to perhaps `Make China Great Again’. And although some feminist organizations opposed the TPP as harmful to American women’s wages, the former acting deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Wendy Cutler, praised it for including a section calling on states parties to undertake a number of cooperative activities to help women access the benefits of the agreement.

2. #CurrencyQuidProNuclearQuo

Formally labeling China a “currency manipulator” — keeping its currency artificially low to help its exports — has been a political talking point in the U.S. for years. Recently, Trump has stated that his government will hold off on such a label, as long as China cooperates by corralling nuclear North Korea. The politics of currency and how it relates to trade imbalances can have particularly negative consequences for women (who handle most consumption decisions) and people in lower socioeconomic brackets, since a decrease in cheap imports would hurt their pocketbooks most.

1. #NotAllJobs

Trump recently declared that “the war on coal is over,” and has emphasized the large number of jobs saved by its efforts. Yet despite the emphasis on saving jobs for Americans, the Administration has not focused any of its energy on saving the tens of thousands of jobs being shed in the retail sector. This may be because the service sector tends to be comprised largely of women and non-white men, whereas the factory jobs and coal mining jobs that are ostensibly being saved are jobs held mostly by white men.


Cosette Creamer is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota and affiliated faculty at the University of Minnesota Law School.

— Jane Lawrence Sumner is an Assistant Professor of Political Science.