Analysis Based on factual reporting, although it incorporates the expertise of the author/producer and may offer interpretations and conclusions.
How Popular Resistance Constrained Trump in His First Term

Donald Trump’s first term as president saw some of the seen in the U.S. in more than 50 years, from the 2017 Women’s March to the 2020 protests after George Floyd’s murder. Things feel different this time around. Critics seem quieter. Some point to . But there’s also a sense that were ultimately futile. This has contributed to .
As notednot long ago, Trump “had not appeared to be swayed by protests, petitions, hashtag campaigns or other tools of mass dissent.”these days. But what if it’s wrong?
As , I study how our narratives about the past shape our actions in the present. In this case, it’s particularly important to get the history right. In fact, popular resistance in Trump’s first term accomplished more than many observers realize; it’s just that most wins happened outside the spotlight.
In my view, the most visible tactics—petitions, hashtags, occasional marches in Washington—had less impact than the quieter work of organizing in communities and workplaces. Understanding when movements succeeded during Trump’s first term is important for identifying how activists can effectively oppose Trump policy in his second administration.
Quiet Victories of the Sanctuary Movement
has been a cornerstone of for more than a decade. Yet despite his early pledge to create a “” that would , only half as many people in his first term as Barack Obama did in his first term. Progressive activists were a key reason.
By combining decentralized organizing and, they successfully pushedand to adopt sanctuary laws that limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Whenthousands of cities and dozens of states, he found that a specific type of sanctuary law that activists supported—barring local jails and prisons from active cooperation with ICE—successfully reduced ICE arrests. A confirmed this finding. Notably, Hausman also found that sanctuary policies had “no detectable effect on crime rates,” contrary to what many.
Another important influence on state and local officials was employers’ resistance to mass deportation. The E-Verify system requiring employers to verify workers’ legal status went , since businesses quietly objected to it. As this example suggests, popular resistance to Trump’s agenda was most effective when it exploited tensions between the administration and capitalists.
The ‘Rising Tide’ Against Fossil Fuels
In his effort to prop up the fossil fuel industry, Trump in his first term withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, weakened or ,and pushed other measures to obstruct the transition to green energy. Researchers projected that these policies would killof people in just the United States by 2028, primarily from exposure to air pollutants. Other studies estimated that the increased carbon pollution would contribute toof, and untold other suffering, by century’s end.
That’s not the whole story, though. was partly thwarted by a combination of environmental activism and market forces. His failure to was especially stark. faster during Trump’s first term than during any four-year period in any country, ever. Some of the same coal barons who in 2016 soon .
The most obvious reasons for coal’s decline were the U.S. natural gas boom and the falling cost of renewable energy. But its decline was hastened by the that protested coal projects, filed , and to disinvest from the sector. The presence of strong local movements may help explain the in coal’s fortunes.
Environmentalists also won some important battles against oil and gas pipelines, power plants, and drilling projects. In a, organizers defeated polluters through a combination of litigation, civil disobedience, and other protests, and by pressuring banks, insurers, and big investors.
In 2018, one pipeline CEO lamented the “, litigation, and vandalism” facing his industry, saying “the level of intensity has ramped up,” with “more opponents” who are “better organized.”
Green energy also expanded much faster than Trump and his allies would have liked, albeit to avert ecological collapse. The U.S. more in Trump’s first term than under any other president, while more than doubled. Research shows that this progress was due in part to , particularly at the state and local levels.
As with immigration, Trump’s energy agenda divided both political and business elites. Some to keep their money in the sector, and some even.anddidn’t always share Trump’s commitment to propping up fossil fuels. These tensions between the White House and business leaders created openings that climate activists could exploit.
Worker Victories in Unlikely Places
Despite as a man of the people, his policies hurt workers in numerous ways—from his attack on to his , which accelerated .
Nonetheless, workers’ direct action on the job won meaningful victories. For example, educators across the country organized dozens of major strikes for,,and even. Workers in hotels, supermarkets, and otheralso walked out. Ultimately,more in 2018 than in any year since 1986.
This happened not just in progressive strongholds butlike West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. At leastdefied state laws denying workers the right to strike.

gains for workers, the strike wave apparently also at election time by increasing political awareness and voter mobilization. The indirect impact on elections is aof labor militancy and.
Quiet acts of worker defiance also constrained Trump. The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic featured widespread resistance to policies that raised the , particularly the lack of mask mandates. Safety-conscious workers frequently disobeyed their employers, in ways . Many customers steered clear of businesses where people were unmasked. These disruptions, and fears they might escalate, for mask mandates.
This resistance surely . With more coordination, it might have in how responded to the virus. Labor momentum could continue into Trump’s second term. Low unemployment, strong , and offer .
Beyond Marches
Progressive movements have no direct influence over Republicans in Washington. However, they have more potential influence over businesses, lower courts, regulators, and state and local politicians. Of these targets, business ultimately has the most power.
Business will usually be able to if its profits are threatened. Trump and Elon Musk may be able to dismantle much of the federal government and , but it’s much harder for them to ignore major economic disruption.
While big marches can raise public consciousness and help activists connect, by themselves they will not block Trump and Musk. For that, the movement will need more disruptive forms of pressure. Building the capacity for that disruption will require sustained organizing in workplaces and communities.
This article was originally published by . It has been published here with permission.
![]() |
Kevin A. Young
Ph.D., teaches history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His most recent book is Abolishing Fossil Fuels: Lessons from Movements That Won (PM Press, 2024). His other books include Blood of the Earth: Resource Nationalism, Revolution, and Empire in Bolivia (2017), Making the Revolution: Histories of the Latin American Left (editor, 2019), Levers of Power: How the 1% Rules and What the 99% Can Do About It (coauthor, 2020), and Trump and the Deeper Crisis (coeditor, 2023).
|