The Senate will vote on Trump’s nominees once they are formally nominated after he takes office, but senators have already begun meeting with the expected nominees. They may also hold hearings ahead of Trump’s inauguration, to expedite the confirmation process.
Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR5), a freshman member of the House who just lost reelection, is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to replace Acting Secretary Julie Su as Secretary of Labor. The position requires confirmation by the Senate.
Chavez-DeRemer was defeated in November’s general election by Rep.-elect Janelle Bynum. The 47% to 45% margin marked one of the closest House races in the country.
Right when Chavez-DeRemer’s next career move seemed most uncertain, Trump announced he would nominate her for his Cabinet. The selection raised eyebrows for her unusually pro-union stances in Congress. Indeed, it may be Democrats who put her over the majority threshold for confirmation.
PRO Act
For example, she was one of only three House Republicans to cosponsor the Richard L. Trumka PRO (Protecting the Right to Organize) Act, the main pro-union bill from Democrats in the current Congress.
Named for the late head of the AFL-CIO, its major provisions would include:
- Banning employers from interfering with union elections, most prominently done in recent years by Amazon.
- Making it harder for employers to classify employees as “independent contractors” instead of employees, most famously done in recent years by rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft.
- Increasing penalties and fines for violations.
The two other Republican cosponsors are Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA1) and Chris Smith (R-NJ4). it hasn’t been brought up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House.
The House previously passed it under Democratic control in 2021, before she took office. Five Republicans crossed party lines to vote for it then, while one Democrat opposed it. The Senate never voted on the measure, despite Democrats controlling the chamber at the time.
Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act
She was also one of eight House Republicans to cosponsor a somewhat-similar bill focusing just on public sector employees, such as those who work for the government or schools.
It hasn’t been brought up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House, though prior 2019 and 2021 versions didn’t either, despite Democrats controlling the chamber both times.
Lead sponsor
She’s been the lead sponsor of 25 bills during her two years in Congress. Most were on unremarkable subjects, such as her SWAT Act to increase funding for research on the spotted wing drosophila insect pest.
But a few of her bills have a more tangible connection to labor or the workforce. Here are three.
Recover Pride in Service Act
From 1994 until its 2011 repeal, the military policy nicknamed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” banned Armed Forces members from serving while openly gay. Around 13,000 were expelled under a status other than “honorable discharge,” meaning they weren’t eligible for veteran benefits or pensions.
In February, Chavez-DeRemer introduced a bill to proactively upgrade those discharges to “honorable.” It never received a vote in the Republican-led House.
However, the issue became partially moot a few months later. In October, the Defense Department completed its own proactive review and retroactively upgraded more than 800 people to honorable discharges.
Veterans Affairs Opportunity for Women-Owned Small Businesses Act
For three decades, the government has established a goal to award 5% of all contracts to women-owned businesses. Congress enacted that goal in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, or FASA.
However, the VA has been falling short of that 5% goal. So Chavez-DeRemer introduced a bill to add women-owned small businesses to “Tier 3” of the VA’s hiring priority list, behind only the existing top two tiers: small businesses owned by veterans who were disabled because of their service, then small businesses owned by veterans who aren’t disabled.
Chavez-DeRemer is the only House Republican sponsor, while the other nine are Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the chamber.
Opioid Crisis Workforce Act
In 2014, Congress enacted the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, a provision of which established National Dislocated Worker Grants. Chavez-DeRemer’s bill would redirect more of those grants to workers in areas suffering from heavy substance abuse, particularly the opioid epidemic.
While the bill didn’t receive a standalone vote, it was incorporated into the 334-page A Stronger Workforce for America Act. The House passed it in April by an overwhelming and bipartisan 378-26. It awaits a potential Senate vote.
What Congress is saying
Democrats could be amenable to this nomination. No less an economic progressive than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently indicated possible openness to voting for Chavez-DeRemer. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler and National Education Association President Becky Pringle both expressed cautious optimism as well.
Vice versa, more traditional conservatives have expressed concern about Lori-Chavez. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called her nomination “regrettable,” while Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) said of her: “There’s some questions that need to be answered.”
The Senate will vote on Trump’s nominees once they are formally nominated after he takes office, but senators have already begun meeting with the expected nominees. They may also hold hearings ahead of Trump’s inauguration, to expedite the confirmation process.
A break from tradition
Trump’s two Labor Secretaries during his first term, Alex Acosta and Eugene Scalia, adopted more “traditional” business-friendly conservative Republican approaches towards unions. For example, both encouraged states to adopt so-called “right to work” laws.
Indeed, Democrats mostly opposed Acosta by 9-38, while they unanimously opposed Scalia by 0-44. Both nominees were nonetheless approved by the Senate, controlled by Republicans both times.
Chavez-DeRemer signals a different direction, one whom some have speculated could even earn more Democratic votes than Republican ones. Why the change?
Unions, long considered in the Democratic camp, have been moving to the right in recent years, particularly in Rust Belt swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. For example, the Teamsters union – which had long supported Democrats for president including the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020 – instead declined to endorse either major candidate in 2024. The group’s leadership didn’t want to run afoul of their members, many of whom supported Trump.
Jesse Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.