The U.S. election of November 4th results have significant consequences for social, economic, and gender policy. Judicial conservatism will continue, impacting reproductive rights, migration and labor laws, as well as welfare programs. Johanna Ritter interviews Heidi Gottfried on what social policy research has overlooked with regard to the contested election, and the consequences of this election will have for future research.

The results of the U.S. election lie less than a week behind us. Can you already assess potential implications for social policy?

The results mean a change for social policy, for foreign policy and for a gender and economic and labor policy, as the Republicans likely have control over Congress. There already has been important institutional change. Trump's first term brought significant legal and judicial changes. And I think they are usually overlooked or de-emphasized in the political economy and social welfare literature. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, leading to rulings that restricted reproductive right, the Dobbs decision eliminated women's right to choose. Labor rights were also affected, with rulings limiting union power and weakening labor courts. Trump’s influence on the federal judiciary is long-lasting.

Do you expect these trends to continue under the next administration?

Yes, the trend towards judicial conservatism will likely continue, with the possibility of even more conservative justices. The courts in the U.S. have played a pivotal role in shaping social policy, from civil rights to reproductive rights. As a result, U.S. courts have a more active role in policy development compared to European systems. The courts have been a mechanism for policy development and formulation.

You said that social policy literature has somewhat overlooked the importance of legal changes.

I believe that welfare state literature, which originates from Esping-Andersen, tends to overlook the legal and judicial dimensions of social policy, as does much of political economy theory. Additionally, not enough attention is given to the subnational level. You cannot fully understand the US welfare state without considering state and local policies. For instance, in the recent election, several conservative states passed progressive referendums on issues like paid sick leave and minimum wage increases. These developments are especially crucial for women workers, who are often concentrated in low-wage service jobs. While these referendums are significant, they are often not framed as part of broader democratic policy at the subnational level. Furthermore, minimum wage laws are both economic, labor, and gender policies. A key issue with much of this literature is its gender-blindness. I appreciate Philip Rathgeb’s book on the radical right and welfare state changes, especially since he addresses these issues. However, I think he tends to conflate gender policy with family policy, and gender-relevant policies need further elaboration.

Gender policies, particularly reproductive rights, have been a significant issue in this election. How did reproductive rights feature in this election?

Reproductive rights were central, particularly with referendums in conservative states that enshrined reproductive rights in state constitutions. That was a way to mobilize Republican women in the suburbs, which was important Philadelphia and Milwaukee. So-called “soccer moms,” suburban, usually conservative moms. care about reproductive rights, but they split their votes—supporting reproductive rights while not voting for Kamala Harris or local senators. The Democratic Party, especially Kamala Harris, focused too heavily on reproductive rights without addressing broader economic concerns.

What is interesting is, at the end, both parties started addressing family policy, which has been absent in the US. Trump articulated policies on paid parental leave and child support, which gained popularity during COVID, expanding under Biden. However, Trump's approach is more about supporting families through tax deductions, while Harris's is focused on equal rights. There's now a discourse on paid family leave, but it's still voluntary, and little has changed. Nonetheless, the fact that both parties are engaging in this conversation is relatively new.

Do you think reproductive rights should have been combined with an economic agenda?

Yes, focusing only on reproductive rights without a broader economic agenda was a missed opportunity. Trump connected with voters by addressing economic dislocation and the challenges of deindustrialization. The Democratic focus on reproductive rights didn’t fully address the economic issues that were central to many voters, especially in the Rust Belt.

Immigration was another key issue in this election and it is another of your areas of expertise. What can we expect from the U.S. government on this front?

Immigration was closely tied to economic policies. It wasn't necessarily anti-immigrant, but focused on the role immigrants are seen to play in the economy, often blamed for taking jobs or receiving benefits they don't qualify for. This became a rhetorical tool linked to economic dislocation and working-class disenfranchisement.

How do you see the labor migration landscape evolving?

Seeking asylum will become harder, and border securitization will increase. Mass deportations are logistically difficult, so they are unlikely, but there will be more fear. Migrant workers in the U.S. fear deportation, which makes it harder for them to demand better working conditions or wages. However, grassroots organizations like the National Domestic Workers Alliance are giving migrant workers a voice. There’s growing recognition of the importance of care work, and unions are starting to form new alliances with labor associations. Even though they are not as well-organized as traditional unions, it could lead to broader labor organization beyond traditional sectors and traditional unions. I see new alliances forming between care workers and trade unions, with unions recognizing the need to address long-term care, which affects everyone.

So, you see both fear and a rise in activism?

Yes, exactly. The fear is there, but there’s also a push to organize. In some states like California and New York, care workers are joining unions, and this is spreading to places like Arizona. Strikes are happening worldwide, particularly due to economic hardship, which has led to a resurgence in unions. Yong people are also mobilizing at Starbucks and Amazon.

What effects do you expect for social policy and socioal research in light of the political landscape emerging from this election?

The election will likely reduce funding for social science research, especially in areas focusing on healthcare, gender, and race. Programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion are being challenged, which will create more tension in securing funding, particularly from public and private sectors. Unlike in Germany, where specialized institutes exist, in the U.S. funding is more limited. However, there will be more collaborative, international research, supported by foundations and platforms like the Transatlantic Platform. New funding sources may open up, which could drive exciting research agendas. Cross-disciplinary collaboration, such as the one in my international project is crucial and allows for richer insights into welfare states, challenging existing typologies and broadening our understanding of social policy options.

Do you think the gap in research regarding the legal side of social policy will change, given the current political developments?

Yes, particularly with what's happening in Hungary, where the European Union has highlighted concerns about legal and judicial reforms. The Hungarian model shows how incremental changes can lead to significant shifts, similar to developments in Poland. There's a growing trend to strengthen the executive branch, which affects social policy mechanisms. This gap in research is important to address. Additionally, comparing policies across countries is crucial, as policies are shaped at different scales—national, regional, and European. In the US, for example, you need to look at state and regional variations to understand how policies are implemented effectively and why certain constituencies might support or oppose them.

This interview was published originally in German at sozialpolitikblog: "Die sozialpolitischen
Auswirkungen der US-Wahl"

Header photo by Pooya Adami - Unsplash