The support for Ukraine aid exposed a fundamental division in the GOP. Traditional conservatives like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) pitched support for Ukraine as existential for the future of democracy, while “America First” conservatives opposed the aid. By and large, they claimed America shouldn’t be sending money overseas when we have problems to solve at home. It’s a nice sentiment, except that these “America First” senators aren’t actually working to solve the domestic problems they complain about. They cannot put America First when they fail to see America as it is.
The “America First” movement has grown around Donald Trump to give policy to a catchphrase. The most generous reading of the movement is an effort to close the border, rebuild American manufacturing, and bring jobs back to our country. Essentially: To put the American worker first. There are many examples — Sens. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Bill Haggerty (R-Tenn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — but I’m going to hone in on Rubio, Hawley and Vance to paint a picture of this faction. These three are often praised for their “pro-labor” policy, and if I squint, I can understand why. The bar is quite low, and talking about liking labor is an improvement over talking about hating labor. When compared to former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who in her decidedly 2004-esque 2024 presidential campaign proudly described herself as a “union buster,” the rhetorical distinction is clear. And both parties should actively compete for union endorsements; it doesn’t matter if Joe Biden himself shows up on a picket line or calls out Shawn Fain in the State of the Union if the Democratic Party doesn’t put its money where its mouth is, either (which it does, to an extent). But the GOP’s “America First” movement never gets beyond the talk.
A leader cannot fight for America’s working class when they don’t see America as it is. The “America First” movement tries to pair social conservatism with pro-labor economics, but this is an impossible needle to thread. Unions aside, the very idea of talking about a “median” worker (as Oren Cass, one of the “thinkers” behind the movement often does), or trying to separate out economic and social issues, is nonsensical. There is no “median” worker — to support American workers is to support diversity.
Rubio, Hawley and Vance are all pro-life, as are the vast majority of “America First” conservatives. When they would prefer a high school girl drop out to become a mother than choose to get an abortion and finish her education, I have a hard time believing they want women to succeed in the labor force. When Vance defends Trump for saying immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” I have a hard time believing either of them cares about any worker who happens to be born outside the U.S. When Rubio supports a ban on transgender military service, I have a difficult time imagining he cares about the economic advancement of the LGBTQ community. When Hawley fights the Biden administration’s attempts to manufacture electric car parts in the U.S., I struggle to believe he cares about climate change, and how only those with vast sums of money will be able to insulate themselves from the effects.
When Hawley, Vance and Rubio have all indicated they won’t accept the lawful results of elections (or in Hawley’s case, not only objected, but actually voted against it), it’s not believable that they care about the voice of working people.
And even in their narrow, conservative, cisgendered, male conception of the American worker, are their policies helping? Put another way: Is it conceivable that someone with anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ policies could care about closing the wealth gap? Maybe, in theory, but that person’s not in the Senate right now. Rubio has claimed to support unions, but just as long as they fight against woke CEOs. Hawley and Vance both showed up on UAW picket lines, but their voting records have earned them lifetime AFL-CIO scores of 11 percent (Hawley) and 0 percent (Vance). Vance told Politico he’s only willing to support “good” unions, which he then defined as unions that align with him politically (unsurprisingly, the cops).
Hawley, Rubio and Vance all oppose the PRO Act — Protecting the Right to Organize — which expands and protects workers rights to collectively bargain and organize. Arguing that you’re pro-union while opposing the PRO Act is a little bit like arguing that you’re pro-women while opposing Roe v. Wade (as in, you’re not). Their words may be pro-union, but their actions don’t match.
Then again, “pro-union” and “pro-labor” are related but not synonymous. I want to leave open the possibility that a politician could, in theory, support policies that benefit the working class without focusing on unions. Unfortunately, we once again don’t see examples of that among these “America First” senators. Rubio and Hawley talk a big game about keeping jobs in the U.S., but both of them (along with other “America First” senators like Cruz and Rick Scott) voted against the CHIPS Act, which actually does keep jobs in the U.S.
Hawley described a $12 minimum wage as “out of the mainstream” and has voted against worker protections for pregnant workers. JD Vance has opposed universal child care, a policy that would help all working parents, and for all his screaming on X about how much he hates the “elites,” he doesn’t come out against Trump’s 2017 tax cuts (Politico described him as “quietly critical.” That doesn’t mean anything. Quietly, I am Taylor Swift, for all you know). Rubio introduced a bill that would pay for parental leave by allowing families to basically take an advance on their Social Security payments; I find the idea of treating Social Security like an exchangeable commodity incredibly dangerous. Even on labor positions unrelated to these radical socialist unions, the “America First” senators have come up short.
We know these senators aren’t on the side of the American worker, which begs the question — whose side are they on? The answer is obvious: people and corporations with money. Despite his UAW picketing, Hawley has received campaign donations from GM and Ford. Rubio has voted against the Freedom to Vote Act to end dark money contributions in politics. JD Vance was among the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money in the 2022 election. And so, when I say that these “America First” leaders don’t see America as it truly is, perhaps I’m the one who’s missing something. They’re nothing new. Maybe they understand how power works in this country, and they’re seeing everything perfectly.
Ginny Hogan is a New York City-based writer and author of “Toxic Femininity in the Workplace.”