America is falling behind in the global EV race – that’s going to cost the US auto industry by Hengrui Liu /Kelly Sims Gallagher

At the 2026 Detroit Auto Show, the spotlight quietly shifted. Electric vehicles, once framed as the inevitable future of the industry, were no longer the centerpiece. Instead, automakers emphasized hybrids, updated gasoline models and incremental efficiency improvements.

The show, held in January, reflected an industry recalibration happening in real time: Ford and General Motors had recently announced US$19.5 billion and $6 billion in EV-related write-downs, respectively, reflecting the losses they expect as they unwind or delay parts of their electric vehicle plans.

The message from Detroit was unmistakable: The United States is pulling back from a transition that much of the world is accelerating.

 

Share article

Print article

At the 2026 Detroit Auto Show, the spotlight quietly shifted. Electric vehicles, once framed as the inevitable future of the industry, were no longer the centerpiece. Instead, automakers emphasized hybrids, updated gasoline models and incremental efficiency improvements.

The show, held in January, reflected an industry recalibration happening in real time: Ford and General Motors had recently announced US$19.5 billion and $6 billion in EV-related write-downs, respectively, reflecting the losses they expect as they unwind or delay parts of their electric vehicle plans.

The message from Detroit was unmistakable: The United States is pulling back from a transition that much of the world is accelerating.

One great story in your inbox every afternoon

Highlights from the Detroit Auto Show, starting with V-8 trucks, by the Detroit Free Press’ auto writer.

That retreat carries consequences far beyond showroom floors.

In China, Europe and a growing number of emerging markets, including Vietnam and Indonesia, electric vehicles now make up a higher share of new passenger vehicle sales than in the United States.

That means the U.S. pullback on EV production is not simply a climate problem – gasoline-powered vehicles are a major contributor to climate change – it is also an industrial competitiveness problem, with direct implications for the future of U.S. automakers, suppliers and autoworkers. Slower EV production and slower adoption in the U.S. can keep prices higher, delay improvements in batteries and software, and increase the risk that the next generation of automotive value creation will happen elsewhere.

Where EVs are taking over

In 2025, global EV registrations rose 20% to 20.7 million. Analysts with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence reported that China reached 12.9 million EV registrations, up 17% from the previous year; Europe recorded 4.3 million, up 33%; and the rest of the world added 1.7 million, up 48%.

By contrast, U.S. EV sales growth was essentially flat in 2025, at about 1%. U.S. automaker Tesla experienced declines in both scale and profitability – its vehicle deliveries fell 9% compared to 2024, the company’s net profit was down 46%, and CEO Elon Musk said it would put more of its focus on artificial intelligence and robotics.

 

Market share tells a similar story and also challenges the assumption that vehicle electrification would take time to expand from wealthy countries to emerging markets.

In 39 countries, EVs now exceed 10% of new car sales, including in Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia, which reached 38%, 21% and 15%, respectively, in 2025, energy analysts at Ember report.

In the U.S., EVs accounted for less than 10% of new vehicle sales, by Ember’s estimates. 

 U.S. President Donald Trump came back into office in 2025 promising to end policies that supported EV production and sales and boost fossil fuels. But while the U.S. was curtailing federal consumer incentives, governments elsewhere largely continued a transition to electric vehicles.

Europe softened its goal for all vehicles to have zero emissions by 2035 at the urging of automakers, but its new target is still a 90% cut in automobiles’ carbon dioxide emissions by 2035.

Germany launched a program offering subsidies worth 1,500 to 6,000 euros per electric vehicle, aimed at small- and medium-income households.

In developing economies, EV policy has largely been sustained through industrial policies. In Brazil, the MOVER program offers tax credits explicitly linked to domestic EV production, research and development, and efficiency targets. South Africa is introducing a 150% investment allowance for EV and battery manufacturing, giving them a tax break starting in March 2026. Thailand has implemented subsidies and reduced excise tax tied to mandatory local production and export commitments.

 

Share article

Print article

At the 2026 Detroit Auto Show, the spotlight quietly shifted. Electric vehicles, once framed as the inevitable future of the industry, were no longer the centerpiece. Instead, automakers emphasized hybrids, updated gasoline models and incremental efficiency improvements.

The show, held in January, reflected an industry recalibration happening in real time: Ford and General Motors had recently announced US$19.5 billion and $6 billion in EV-related write-downs, respectively, reflecting the losses they expect as they unwind or delay parts of their electric vehicle plans.

The message from Detroit was unmistakable: The United States is pulling back from a transition that much of the world is accelerating.

One great story in your inbox every afternoon

Highlights from the Detroit Auto Show, starting with V-8 trucks, by the Detroit Free Press’ auto writer.

That retreat carries consequences far beyond showroom floors.

In China, Europe and a growing number of emerging markets, including Vietnam and Indonesia, electric vehicles now make up a higher share of new passenger vehicle sales than in the United States.

That means the U.S. pullback on EV production is not simply a climate problem – gasoline-powered vehicles are a major contributor to climate change – it is also an industrial competitiveness problem, with direct implications for the future of U.S. automakers, suppliers and autoworkers. Slower EV production and slower adoption in the U.S. can keep prices higher, delay improvements in batteries and software, and increase the risk that the next generation of automotive value creation will happen elsewhere.

Where EVs are taking over

In 2025, global EV registrations rose 20% to 20.7 million. Analysts with Benchmark Mineral Intelligence reported that China reached 12.9 million EV registrations, up 17% from the previous year; Europe recorded 4.3 million, up 33%; and the rest of the world added 1.7 million, up 48%.

By contrast, U.S. EV sales growth was essentially flat in 2025, at about 1%. U.S. automaker Tesla experienced declines in both scale and profitability – its vehicle deliveries fell 9% compared to 2024, the company’s net profit was down 46%, and CEO Elon Musk said it would put more of its focus on artificial intelligence and robotics.

Market share tells a similar story and also challenges the assumption that vehicle electrification would take time to expand from wealthy countries to emerging markets.

In 39 countries, EVs now exceed 10% of new car sales, including in Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia, which reached 38%, 21% and 15%, respectively, in 2025, energy analysts at Ember report.

In the U.S., EVs accounted for less than 10% of new vehicle sales, by Ember’s estimates.

U.S. President Donald Trump came back into office in 2025 promising to end policies that supported EV production and sales and boost fossil fuels. But while the U.S. was curtailing federal consumer incentives, governments elsewhere largely continued a transition to electric vehicles.

Europe softened its goal for all vehicles to have zero emissions by 2035 at the urging of automakers, but its new target is still a 90% cut in automobiles’ carbon dioxide emissions by 2035.

Germany launched a program offering subsidies worth 1,500 to 6,000 euros per electric vehicle, aimed at small- and medium-income households.

In developing economies, EV policy has largely been sustained through industrial policies. In Brazil, the MOVER program offers tax credits explicitly linked to domestic EV production, research and development, and efficiency targets. South Africa is introducing a 150% investment allowance for EV and battery manufacturing, giving them a tax break starting in March 2026. Thailand has implemented subsidies and reduced excise tax tied to mandatory local production and export commitments.

Low prices from Chinese automakers such as BYD helped the EV industry take off, not just in China but globally. A car priced at 99,800 yuan is just over US$14,000. These were at an auto show in Yantai, in eastern China, in April 2025. Stringer/AFP via Getty Images

In China, the EV industry has entered a phase of regulatory maturity. After a decade of subsidies and state-led investment that helped domestic firms undercut global competitors, the government’s focus is no longer on explosive growth at home.

With their domestic market saturated and competition fierce, Chinese automakers are pushing aggressively into global markets. Beijing has reinforced this shift by ending its full tax exemption for EV purchases and replacing it with a tapered 5% tax on EV buyers.

Consequences for US automakers

EV manufacturing is governed by steep learning curves and scale economies, meaning the more vehicles a company builds, the better it gets at making them faster and cheaper. Low domestic production and sales can mean higher costs for parts and weaker bargaining power for automakers in global supply chains.

The competitive landscape is already changing. In 2025, China exported 2.65 million EVs, doubling its 2024 exports, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. And BYD surpassed Tesla as the world’s largest EV maker in 2025. 

 

The U.S. risks becoming a follower in the industry it once defined.

Some people argue that American consumers simply prefer trucks and hybrids. Others point to Chinese subsidies and overcapacity as distortions that justify U.S. industry caution. These concerns deserve consideration, but they do not outweigh the fundamental fact that, globally, the EV share of auto sales continues to rise.

What can the US do?

For U.S. automakers and workers to compete in this market, the government, in our view, will have to stop treating EVs as an ideological matter and start governing it like an industrial transition.

That starts with restoring regulatory credibility, something that seems unlikely right now as the Trump administration moves to roll back vehicle emissions standards. Performance standards are the quiet engine of industrial investment. When standards are predictable and enforced, manufacturers can plan, suppliers can invest in new businesses, and workers can train for reliable demand.

Governments at state and local levels and industry can also take important steps.

Focus on affordability and equity: The federal clean-vehicle tax credit that effectively gave EV buyers a discount expired in September 2025. An alternative is targeted, point-of-sale support for lower- and middle-income buyers. By moving away from blanket credits in favor of targeted incentives – a model already used in California and Pennsylvania – governments can ensure public funds are directed toward people who are currently priced out of the EV market. Additionally, interest-rate buydowns that allow buyers to reduce their loan payments and “green loan” programs can help, typically funded through state and local governments, utility companies or federal grants.

Keep building out the charging network: A federal judge ruled on Jan. 23, 2026, that the Trump administration violated the law when it suspended a $5 billion program for expanding the nation’s EV charger network. That expansion effort can be improved by shifting the focus from the number of ports installed to the number of working chargers, as California did in 2025. Enforcing reliability and clearing bottlenecks, such as electricity connections and payment systems, could help boost the number of functioning sites.

Use fleet procurement as a stabilizer for U.S. sales: When states, cities and companies provide a predictable volume of vehicle purchases, that helps manufacturers plan future investments. For example, Amazon’s 2019 order of 100,000 Rivian electric delivery vehicles to be delivered over the following decade gave the startup automaker the boost it needed.

Treat workforce transition as core infrastructure: This means giving workers skills they can carry from job to job, helping suppliers retool instead of shutting down, and coordinating training with employers’ needs. Done right, these investments turn economic change into a source of stable jobs and broad public support. Done poorly, they risk a political backlash.

The scene at the Detroit Auto Show should be a warning, not a verdict. The global auto industry is accelerating its EV transition. The question for the United States is whether it will shape that future – and ensure the technologies and jobs of the next automotive era are in the U.S. – or import it.

Macroeconomic implications of immigration flows in 2025 and 2026: January 2026 update by Wendy Edelberg, Wendy Edelberg headshot Wendy Edelberg Senior Fellow - Economic Studies Stan Veuger, and Tara Watson

 

The first year of the second Trump administration has seen dramatic changes in immigration policy, resulting in a sharp slowdown in net migration to the United States. We expect the pattern of restrictive policy and increased enforcement to continue or intensify through the coming year. Building on work released in late 2024 and mid-2025, we use available data combined with judgment to estimate a range of likely outcomes for net migration for the years 2025 and 2026. We conclude that net migration was likely close to zero or negative over calendar year 2025 for the first time in at least half a century. Specifically, we estimate that net migration was between –295,000 and -10,000 for the year. For 2026, we project net migration is likely to remain in negative territory. These figures come with the caveat that recent reductions in data transparency make the estimates more uncertain.

The downward population pressure stemming from negative net migration has important implications for the macroeconomy. In recent years, growth in the U.S.-born working-age population has been weak, and nearly all growth in the labor force has stemmed from immigration flows. The 2022–24 immigration surge was accompanied by robust job growth, with immigrants both supplying labor and generating demand for goods and services. Conversely, the recent slowdown in population growth has affected the level of employment growth consistent with an unchanged unemployment rate, often called “breakeven employment growth.” We estimate that, in the second half of 2025, breakeven employment growth of 20,000 to 50,000 jobs each month was consistent with immigration flows. That number could dip into negative territory over 2026. Reduced immigration also has modest dampening effects on GDP and will weaken consumer spending by an estimated $60–$110 billion combined over the two years.  

Immigration flows in 2025 and 2026

To estimate net migration, we separately consider inflows and outflows in “low immigration” and “high immigration” scenarios. Though deportations and other exits receive more media attention, a slowdown in new arrivals, especially via humanitarian parole and refugee programs and across the Southwest border, has a bigger effect on reducing migration flows in 2025.

Our results suggest that net immigration likely ranged between –295,000 and –10,000 for 2025. For 2026, we project that net immigration will likely range between –925,000 and +185,000. In Figure 1, we compare those outcomes to net immigration since 2020, a year when immigration was constrained because of the pandemic. After reaching a roughly normal pace in 2021, immigration surged from 2022 to 2024.

 Inflows – Green cards issued abroad. The U.S. issues a variety of permanent visas—including family-based green cards, employment-based green cards, and diversity visas. Roughly half are issued to those already living in the United States. Monthly totals of green cards issued to individuals abroad are released by the U.S. State Department. The data have not been updated since May 2025. We can, however, see a marked year-over-year decline of more than 20% by May 2025 relative to May 2024. The average of April and May was 82% of the previous April and May.

 We assume in the high-immigration scenario that monthly green cards issued from June through December 2025 are 82% of what they were for the same month in 2024. In the low scenario, we assume the number was further reduced to 95% of the high scenario. The resulting estimate is that there were 560,000 to 575,000 green cards issued abroad in 2025, compared to about 670,000 in 2024.

 For 2026, we assume that green card inflows could continue to fall as the result of January 1 expansions in the list of countries under full or partial travel bans, increased vetting and paperwork, and other forms of sand in the gears. In the low scenario, we assume 2026 flows will reach only 87.5% of 2025 low scenario flows, or about 490,000. The travel ban is expected to affect 20% of immigrants, but for some categories of immigrants, they likely will be replaced by immigrants from other countries, so we assumed a smaller than 20% drop-off in the category. In the high scenario, we assume the total number of green cards will continue at its 2025 high level, or 575,000, reflecting the possibility that the policy will not be implemented.

 

Inflows – Refugees. Though some refugees were likely admitted in early January 2025, the current administration has all but suspended the refugee program, with an exception for an unknown number of white South Africans. Data on the number of refugees are no longer publicly available. We assume that the total number of refugees for 2025 was between 7,600 and 12,000 and that the 2026 number will fall to between 1,200 and 7,500. For comparison, around 105,000 refugees were admitted in 2024.

Inflows – Temporary visas. The U.S. admits a large number of people through various non-immigrant (temporary) visa programs — including student visas, temporary work visas such as the H-2A and H-1B, and a variety of others. Excluding those for short-term tourism and business, about 2.17 million non-immigrant visas were issued in 2024. Data have not been released since May 2025, but year-over-year comparison suggests a monthly slowdown. In the high scenario, we assume the April-May reduction to 89% of the prior year monthly values persists for the rest of the year. In the low scenario, the figure is further reduced to 95% of the high scenario. The resulting range is 1.94–1.99 million temporary visa inflows.

For 2026, the low scenario assumes the number will decline further to 85% of the 2025 value, reflecting travel bans and other deterrents for a range of 1.65–1.99 million.

Inflows – Parole and notices to appear. Between 2022 and summer 2024, large numbers of border arrivals at or between ports of entry were allowed to enter the U.S., often granted a temporary parole status or given a notice to appear (NTA) in immigration court. Many of these arrivals expressed fear of returning to their home country and intended to pursue an asylum claim once in the United States.

These inflows fell substantially after a change in border policy in mid-2024 and have fallen further still with the new administration’s policies. The administration has not been considering most credible fear claims which would allow people to petition for asylum. It has also eliminated Biden-era humanitarian parole programs. Border information is updated monthly, so we have a good estimate of 2025 parole/NTA inflows at around 67,000 to 70,000, with many of those in the first month of the year. For comparison, the 2024 number was 1.41 million. For 2026, we assume these border entries will remain low at 26,000 to 53,000.

Inflows – Entries without inspection. Entries without inspection (border crossers who do not encounter any official) are inherently difficult to measure. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security uses technology and information on encounters to estimate this number but has not publicly released statistics in several years. For 2024, we rely on the recently released Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of 270,000, which we believe to be reasonable. Work by David Bier suggests that entries without inspection fell substantially after the end of the Title 42 public health restrictions in 2023, with more people instead encountering an official and often receiving a parole or notice to appear.

In 2025, the number of people encountering a border official fell dramatically, despite increased patrolling. This implies a sharp slowdown in the number of attempted border entries. Using a historical ratio (from 2015 to 2019, or just 2019) of encounters to estimated entries without inspection, we estimate 2025 entries without inspection to be between 22,000 and 39,000. For 2026, we believe this number could potentially increase in the high scenario given elevated geopolitical uncertainty and innovation in smuggler networks. For 2026, we assume a range of entries without inspection of 22,000 to 150,000.

 

Outflows – Normal out-migration. Outflows are harder to measure than inflows. Detailed statistics are not kept on those who leave, especially those who exit across a land border. We assume that immigrants who have stayed in the country more than two years and newly arrived green card holders and refugees have an annual baseline outmigration rate of 2.5%, an estimate informed by examining cohorts in the American Community Survey and research using tax records. Given their more precarious status, we assume recent arrivals with a notice to appear in immigration court or parole have an exit rate of 3%, and recent entries without inspection a rate of 4%. Recently arrived temporary visa holders are assumed to leave at a rate of 20%, reflecting the fact that almost all temporary visa holders transition to another legal status or exit according to the terms of their visa. By assumption, the level of normal outflows is mechanically reduced when the foreign-born population shrinks and when a smaller fraction of the foreign-born population has arrived within the last two years.

Outflows – Removals. Though official data is less available than in the past, we use information through July from the Deportation Data Project and data through November from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention management reports. We estimate 310,000 to 315,000 removals for 2025. This estimate is lower than some public statements from the administration, as discussed below, potentially in part because it is limited to border and interior removals executed by ICE.

Information provided by the Deportation Data Project makes it possible to have a consistent monthly removal series over time. The dataset excludes noncitizens processed for expedited removal or voluntary return without entering ICE custody; those excluded are largely border encounters leading to immediate removal, which would not have been considered entries in our analysis. Border encounters transferred to ICE are included. From January to July, removals reported in the Deportation Data Project are 87% of those reported in the ICE detention management reports. As a result, to generate a consistent estimate for removals from August through November, we infer monthly removals from ICE detention management report updates and multiply by 87% to make the two sources more comparable. Then, we estimate that removals in December are the same as in November or 10% higher.

At 310,000 to 315,000, the 2025 removals are not much higher than the 2024 removals of around 285,000. The nature of these removals has changed, however. In fiscal year 2024, only 18% of ICE removals were initiated by ICE as opposed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, meaning the vast majority of ICE deportations were of recent border crossers. Comparable statistics have not been released for 2025, but it is clear from border statistics and other evidence that most removals in 2025 were from the nation’s interior.

For 2026, we assume removals will again be around 310,000 or will increase. Our low-immigration scenario assumes that about 510,000 individuals will be deported in 2026, consistent with a daily removal rate of around 1,400 people. This scenario suggests amplification beyond the second half of 2025 when the average was just under 1,000 per day. Funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will likely allow for increased infrastructure and staffing to achieve a higher level of enforcement in 2026.

Outflows – Voluntary response to enforcement. Immigrants may respond to the enforcement environment even if they are not formally removed. For example, some immigration court cases end in “voluntary departure,” which carries fewer long-run penalties than an official removal. Using data from the Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse, we see that there were around 40,000 such court resolutions in 2025, compared to around 10,000 in 2024.

In addition, immigrants may choose to leave the United States if a family member is deported or may decide that leaving is a better option than risking detention or permanent family separation. Even those with legal status may choose to exit in a high-enforcement environment to avoid harassment or to find a more welcoming community. For example, graduating students may choose another global destination. At the same time, some may choose to avoid leaving the United States because of fears that there will be no means of re-entry, as is believed to have been the response during the 1990s increases in border enforcement.

There is little data to assess the degree to which immigrants have increased their voluntary exit rates in 2025 in response to the policy environment. Given the very different context from the circular migration common in the 1990s, our assessment is that greater border and interior enforcement will cause more out-migration. We assume proportional responses to deportations based on immigrant category, with those without legal status and recent arrivals more likely exit in response to enforcement. Our estimates suggest that between 210,000 to 405,000 left voluntarily in 2025 beyond what would have been normally expected without enforcement activity. For 2026, that number could reach 575,000 if the number of removals continues to increase.

Contrasting estimates of net migration in 2025

Our estimate of net migration of –295,000 to –10,000 for 2025 differs from some other prominent estimates. The most recent version of the CBO demographic estimates, released in January 2026, suggests net migration of around +400,000 for 2025. The CBO estimate includes fewer deportations than our estimate, and CBO also assumes voluntary out-migration falls in response to increased enforcement activity, whereas we assume it rises. Our midpoint estimates are about 550,000 lower than those of CBO.

Other estimates are much more negative than our own, notably those using Current Population Survey (CPS) data to examine the foreign-born population. For example, the CPS has been used by the Center for Immigration Studies and the Pew Research Center to estimate a decline in the foreign-born population of around 2 million. (Note that net immigration is not directly comparable to the change in the foreign-born population because the population figure also includes mortality, but this population number implies negative net migration of at least 1.5 million.) 

However, as detailed by Jed Kolko and in forthcoming work by some of the authors of this piece, the CPS should not be used to infer anything about population levels. By construction, the CPS methodology uses pre-determined fixed “population controls.” The population levels for each month of 2025 in that survey were projected in late 2024, as were subpopulations by race/ethnicity and age, before it was known what would happen to immigration flows. The same CPS data that underlie the foreign-born population decline of 2 million, therefore imply an implausible rise in the U.S.-born population of more than 2 million (because the pre-determined overall population growth is positive). The CPS challenges are compounded by increased survey non-response which likely disproportionately affects immigrants in the current policy environment. Given the many issues with the CPS data (and indeed a warning from Census against using the CPS to estimate the size of the foreign-born population), we believe the analyses using the CPS substantially overstate the drop in the foreign-born population and therefore imply net migration that is also too far in negative territory.

 

A December 2025 U.S. Department of Homeland Security announcement claimed 2.5 million illegal aliens left the United States in 2025. This number is the sum of what is likely an estimate based on the CPS data (1.9 million) and a measure of removals (622,000).  As noted above, the population estimates using the CPS are flawed. Even if correct, they involve the total foreign-born population of both legal and undocumented immigrants. They would also reflect deaths and both voluntary out-migration and forced departures. There would therefore be no reason to add a measure of removals to the estimated CPS population decline. Finally, the measure of removals used in this news release is nearly double that in ICE’s FY 2025 and FY 2026 detention statistics, suggesting the removal statistic cited may include rapid border removals and other enforcement activity not involving ICE. This announcement should not be considered a serious source for an estimate of net migration.

Labor market impacts

Our estimates of migration inflows and outflows have direct implications for labor force growth and job creation. Following our approach from previous work, in this section, we estimate the rate of employment growth that is consistent with full employment for each of our scenarios.

In a typical year, new immigrants do not all enter the labor force immediately. For that reason, the immigration surge in 2022, for example, continues to boost the size of the labor force in 2023 and 2024. That pattern is shown in Figure 4 using survey data through 2024. Interestingly, the most recent immigrant cohorts appear to have higher initial labor force participation rates such that the boost to the labor force happens more quickly.

 

That pattern appears to have been further disrupted in the first part of 2025. A sharp increase in work permit applications from January to April suggests a surge in interest in labor force participation among recent immigrants. Reflecting that, we assume a relatively quick ramp-up of labor force participation among immigrants in early 2025. For immigrants who arrive in the U.S. in the middle of 2025, we assume that the protracted increase in labor force participation happens as in prior years. This is consistent with the approach reflected in the bottom panel of Table 2 in our 2025 AEI Economic Perspectives paper.

Table 1 shows our estimates of monthly employment growth consistent with full employment. As the first few rows of Table 1 show, monthly potential employment growth from 2022 to 2024 was well over 100,000 and by some estimates in 2022 and 2023 close to or even above 200,000. On average, potential employment growth remained above 90,000 during 2025, but the full-year average masks a significant decline over the course of the year.

 f we look solely at the second half of 2025, we estimate the rate of job growth consistent with full employment to have been 20,000 to 50,000 in both of our scenarios. Monthly non-farm payrolls as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics were just modestly below these estimates. With the caveat that the October–November government shutdown affected data collection, non-farm payroll growth averaged around 14,500 in the second half of the year. Over that same period when employment growth was modestly below our estimate of potential employment growth, the unemployment rate has risen by 0.3 percentage points.

 

Looking toward the current calendar year, 2026, we expect the decline in potential employment growth caused by changes to immigration policy to persist. In our low-immigration scenario, monthly growth for the year will average between –20,000 and +20,000 jobs. In our high-immigration scenario, we expect payrolls consistent with full employment to average between 10,000 and 50,000 jobs. These numbers are (even) lower than those of the second half of 2025 and dramatically below those of 2022 through 2024.

Effects on consumer spending and GDP

As in our previous analyses, we can translate our estimates of labor force growth into effects on consumer spending and GDP growth. For short-run GDP growth to change due to a reduction in net migration, labor force growth and earnings need to change. The direct effect on GDP growth owing to less output created by immigrants is roughly 0.2 percentage points in 2025 and 0.1 percentage point in 2026

 

In addition to those direct effects, the reduction in consumer spending by immigrants also further dampens GDP growth. In our assessment, the reduction takes businesses by surprise; in response, those businesses take actions, such as laying people off, which have knock-on effects in reducing GDP.

Consumer spending is dampened for two reasons. First, fewer immigrants are in the U.S.  and therefore are not spending in the U.S. Second, we expect that when immigration enforcement is very salient, immigrants who remain in the U.S. pull back on their spending because they are more uncertain about the future and may minimize going into public for shopping or leisure. Those effects on GDP do not happen immediately, so to some degree, reductions in consumer spending in 2025 continue to dampen GDP growth in 2026.   

The reductions in aggregate consumer spending that result from the change in immigration policy are significant in dollar terms. We estimate that the factors that lower consumer spending by immigrants result in between $40 billion and $60 billion less spending in 2025 than in 2024. In 2026, consumer spending is projected to be further reduced by $10 billion to $40 billion. Those are useful estimates to keep in mind as some businesses report unexpected weakness in consumer demand.

All told, we estimate that the reductions in labor supply and consumer spending from changes to immigration policy affected GDP growth in 2025 by between –0.2 percentage point (high scenario) and –0.3 percentage point (low scenario). For calendar year 2026, the effect will be between –0.1 percentage point (high) and –0.3 percentage point (low). An implicit assumption here is that the Federal Reserve does not loosen monetary policy in response to the lower potential employment growth that results from reduced immigration.

Finally, the effects of the current immigration policy on inflation are likely small. That is because immigration does not just add to labor supply but to demand as well. Businesses experience a reduction in net immigration both as a reduction in labor supply and as a reduction in demand for their goods and services.

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that the United States experienced negative net migration in 2025 for the first time in at least decades. We estimate net flows of –295,000 to –10,000 for the year. Though a high degree of policy uncertainty remains, continued negative net migration for 2026 is also likely. The slowdown implies weaker employment, GDP, and consumer spending growth.

There has been much speculation about how immigration policy might be affecting the strength of the labor market and the economy, as well as price and wage inflation, and how monetary policy should respond. According to our estimates, employment growth may remain quite weak relative to historical trends. Breakeven monthly employment growth is estimated at 50,000 or less and could well turn negative in 2026.  The unemployment rate will be a better read of whether the labor market is weak owing to business cycle forces that monetary policy can address or simply owing to more constrained immigration.

Certain parts of the economy will see unexpectedly weak economic activity, such as businesses that serve part of the affected immigrant population. Such weakness is the new normal under current immigration policy, rather than weakness reflecting adverse business cycle conditions. As the economy adjusts, more accommodative monetary policy should be used cautiously.

Minnesota School Librarians Supporting Students and Peers by Kara Yorio

 As ICE raids continue in Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN (MSP), the school day is anything but normal. Parents are standing guard and acting as escorts for immigrants and all nonwhite students at drop-off and pickup, recess has often been moved inside while ICE agents stand just outside campuses, schools are facilitating online learning to accommodate children whose families are too scared to let them leave the house, and students are staging walkouts in 

protest. Every aspect of life in the Twin Cities has been impacted, according to those who live there.

In the middle of it all, school librarians are doing what school librarians do: creating and sharing booklists to help process emotions and understand history, teaching media literacy skills to combat rumors, sharing resources, distributing and maintaining electronic devices, and supporting each other personally and professionally.

“I would like to be doing more to support people, but my job is pretty all-encompassing in my life,” a school librarian from the MSP area said. “I’ve been trying to reassure myself withreminders that being a school librarian—connecting kids with diverse stories, helping them build their literacy and critical thinking skills, giving them the tools to see through spin and propaganda—is its own kind of activism. I am giving it everything I have.”

 SLJ was in contact with multiple librarians who wanted to talk—saying they felt not only a catharsis in sharing what they were going through but a need to let people outside of the area know what was happening—but in the end, many changed their mind about speaking because they were afraid. Even offered anonymity, they, and in some cases their administration, feared that what they said would give enough clues to identify immigrant students in their school or reveal security measures the district is taking. They were fearful that speaking to SLJ about how they were supporting students and one another would lead ICE to their doors—of their schools and their homes.

 Inside school buildings, educators are trying to keep things as routine as possible.

“School is a place that needs to be safe and stable,” said a school librarian from a Minneapolis suburb—an outer ring, as they are called in the area. ICE has not been on her campus but has been in the community, albeit not as widespread as in Minneapolis. “We were given the instructions [to] try and maintain regular classroom activities as much as possible.”

Of course, ICE activities and the latest news remain a dominant part of conversations.

 

“Students ask questions, definitely,” she says. “You answer to the best of your ability, [but] don’t let it dominate a whole class period. You don’t know what somebody else is going through, where that might trigger something. Just like in any other crisis, if they need counseling support, we get them to the counseling office. We have students that are not coming to school if they don’t feel safe. We have students that are coming to school, because this is a place that they feel safe.”

Even in an area where ICE interactions might not be daily occurrences on neighborhood streets or in local stores, the impact is significant and disruptive.

 

“Everybody’s scared, everybody’s nervous,” said the librarian. “The teachers are scared for our kids of color. Our staff of color are carrying all their papers just in case.”

Carrying their papers in case they are stopped in the street and forced to prove their citizenship because of the color of their skin —in the United States of America.

“Never did I think that would be something that I would ever have to say,” she added. “I’m frustrated. I’m angry. I’m sad—in disbelief and just so angry that our staff and our students are going through this.”

Her focus is on making sure “that we’re being fierce advocates for our staff and for our students.”

 

In an attempt to continue educating those too afraid to come to school, districts are implementing online learning and hybrid learning on the fly. For people who think that should be easy because the schools went online for COVID in 2020, it is not.

“It’s a very different situation,” said a school librarian.

In Minnesota, when COVID hit, Gov. Tim Walz closed schools for two weeks to give administrators and staff time to plan and develop protocols and procedures. This time, Minneapolis Public Schools decided to allow students to learn online, announcing it over a weekend and beginning it that Monday.

 “In Minneapolis, pretty much all the librarians are canceling any sort of scheduled classes, because they’re getting devices, they’re getting hot spots, they’re doing password resets,” she said.

Many of these families haven’t gone through online learning before, she noted. They don’t know how to join a Google Meet or Zoom, according to the librarian, and instructions must be in English, Spanish, and various other languages to meet the needs of the diverse school communities.

“It’s mass craziness,” she said, adding that librarians are just in “survival mode.”

 

The St. Paul Public Schools closed on Tuesday, January 20, and Wednesday, January 21, for teachers to prepare to begin virtual learning in that district.

School librarians in the area are leaning on one another, but supportive words from outside the area would be appreciated, as well.

‘Please write, please send letters of encouragement and support,” one Minnesota librarian said. “Write not just to schools but to all of Minnesota. Locate an address and write.”

The Information and Technology Educators of Minnesota, the school library division of the Minnesota Library Association, sent an email to the organization’s listserv of Minnesota school librarians, library workers, retired librarians, and community library advocates.

 The email, which was shared with SLJ, began by thanking people for reaching out and offering support and resources to the Minneapolis Public Schools. It shared two "crisis and trauma" booklists, one for elementary students and another for secondary students, with titles to help kids process the situation. It also included ways those outside of the Twin Cities could support affected families and communities, including donating to a local food pantry, assisting an organization that is sending kids free books, patronizing MSP BIPOC-owned and immigrant-owned businesses, and calling legislators.

 The email concluded: “We are librarians. We are teachers. We are Minnesotans. We can do hard things. In the wise words of Teddy Roosevelt, ‘Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.’

“Sending hugs, tissues, and chocolate!”

Trump links Greenland threat to Nobel Peace Prize snub, EU prepares to retaliate by John Irish and Nora Buli

 

PARIS/OSLO, Jan 19 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has linked his drive to take control of Greenland to his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize, saying he no longer thought "purely of Peace" as the row over the island threatened to reignite a trade war with Europe.

Asked by NBC News in a brief telephone interview on Monday if he would use force to seize Greenland, Trump said “No comment,” adding he would "100%" follow through on plans to hit European nations with tariffs without a Greenland deal.

 

Trump has intensified his push to wrest sovereignty over Greenland from fellow NATO member Denmark, prompting the European Union to weigh hitting back with its own measures.

The dispute is threatening to upend the NATO alliance that has underpinned Western security for decades and which was already under strain over the war in Ukraine and Trump's refusal to protect allies which do not spend enough on defence.

Trump's threat has rattled European industry and sent shockwaves through financial markets amid fears of a return to the volatility of 2025's trade war, which only eased when the sides reached tariff deals in the middle of the year.

 

In a text message on Sunday to Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, Trump said: "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."

Norway's government released the messages on Monday under the country's freedom of information act.

Stoere had sent an initial message on behalf of himself and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, calling for de-escalation of tensions and suggesting a call, eliciting a response from Trump less than half an hour later.

NOBEL COMMITTEE GAVE 2025 PEACE PRIZE TO MACHADO, NOT TRUMP

The Norwegian Nobel Committee annoyed Trump by awarding the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize not to him but to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.

 

In his message, Trump also repeated his accusation that Denmark cannot protect Greenland from Russia or China.

"... And why do they have a 'right of ownership' anyway?" he wrote, adding: "The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”

Trump vowed on Saturday to implement a wave of increasing tariffs from February 1 on EU members Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, along with Britain and Norway, until the U.S. is allowed to buy Greenland, home to only 57,000 people.

"We are living in 2026, you can trade with people, but you don't trade people," Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said during a visit to London on Monday.

 

In a post on Facebook, Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the territory should be allowed to decide its own fate.

"We will not let ourselves be pressured. We stand firm on dialogue, on respect and on international law," he said.

Denmark's military told Reuters that planes carrying Danish soldiers and Army Commander Peter Boysen would land in Kangerlussuaq, western Greenland, on Monday, describing it as a "substantial contribution" to the Arctic Endurance military exercise.

TALKS WITH TRUMP IN DAVOS?

Norway's Stoere amended his schedule, announcing that he would attend the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday and Thursday, overlapping with Trump's planned appearance at the annual gathering of the global political and business elite.

Trump is expected to deliver a keynote address on Wednesday in his first appearance at the conference in six years.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he too would try to meet Trump on Wednesday, adding that a trade dispute was not wanted. "But if we are confronted with tariffs that we consider unreasonable, then we are capable of responding," Merz said.U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would be "very unwise" for European governments to retaliate.

"I think it’s a complete canard that the president will be doing this because of the Nobel prize. The president is looking at Greenland as a strategic asset for the United States," he told reporters in Davos.

EU LEADERS TO MEET ON THURSDAY

EU leaders will discuss their options at an emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday. One option is a package of tariffs on 93 billion euros ($108 billion) of U.S. imports that could automatically kick in on February 6 after a six-month suspension.

Another option is the "Anti-Coercion Instrument" (ACI), which has never yet been used and which could limit access to public tenders, investments or banking activity or restrict trade in services, in which the U.S. has a surplus with the bloc, including in digital services.

The EU said it was continuing to engage "at all levels" with the U.S. but said the use of its ACI was not off the table.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for calm discussion between the allies, adding that he did not believe Trump was considering military action to seize Greenland.

Russia declined to comment on whether the U.S. designs on Greenland were good or bad but said it was hard to disagree with experts that Trump would "go down in... world history" if he did take control of the island.($1 = 0.8604 euros)

Black pepper and olive oil: The ingredients that super-charge the nutrients you get from food by Jasmin Fox-Skelly

 

Seasoning your food or adding a dressing to a meal could help you absorb more vitamins and minerals. Scientists believe it could boost the nutrients we get from food.

It's been a prized spice for thousands of years due to its ability to bring flavour to even the blandest of foods. Black pepper was first cultivated in India more than 3,500 years ago, where the plant that produces the spice is native; it became one of the most valuable commodities of the ancient world. Today most of us sprinkle it on our food as a seasoning, often without even thinking.

But adding black pepper to your meal might be doing more than simply adding flavour. It might be boosting the amount of nutrients you are getting from your food. 

Peppercorns contain a chemical that helps vitamins and other nutrients be absorbed more easily into the bloodstream. Tiny droplets of fat found in milk and olive oil have also been found to improve the availability of nutrients to the body. Scientists are now trying to harness these effects to develop new types of fortified foods and help people who struggle to absorb the nutrients they need to stay healthy.

One of the problems we face with even the most nutrient-rich foods is whether our bodies are able to extract the vitamins and minerals as they pass through our digestive system. Take sweetcorn, for example. Sweetcorn kernels are undoubtedly packed with goodness – high in fibre, protein, vitamins and micronutrients like potassium. But anyone who has peered into the toilet bowl after a meal of corn kernels will wonder how much of that nourishment they have absorbed. The waxy outer casing of the kernel is hard for our bodies to break down, especially if we don't chew it properly first.

 

When you eat sweetcorn [without adequately chewing] it passes all the way through your gastrointestinal tract and ends up in your toilet, and all the nutrients inside are still trapped in there," says David Julian McClements, professor of food science at the University of Massachusetts, US.

Luckily, by chewing sweetcorn, we can free the nutrient filled flesh inside so it can be digested.

What is the matrix? 

This extreme example illustrates a simple fact about food – for nutrients to be digested and used by the body, they must first be released from the complex matrix of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and other components that give food its texture and structure.

There are also other barriers that can prevent vitamins from being digested. After being released from the food matrix, vitamins must be able to dissolve in the gastrointestinal fluid. They must then be carried to the small intestine, where special cells called enterocytes then carry them across into the bloodstream. 

However many vitamins – including A, D, E, and K – which are classed as oil soluble vitamins – need help to be transported to their destination. 

 "Oil soluble vitamins don't dissolve in water, so if you ate them and you didn't have any fat with your food they wouldn't dissolve, and they would just go through your gastrointestinal tract and out into poop," says McClements.

The food matrix can help here too.

 "If you eat them [vitamins] with some fat, the fat gets broken down and it forms these tiny nano-sized particles called micelles inside your gastrointestinal tract," says McClements. "They trap the vitamins inside them. They then carry them through the watery gastrointestinal fluid into the epithelial cells where they can get absorbed."

There are some people, however, who face additional problems with getting vitamins from their food. People with malabsorption syndrome suffer from an impaired ability to absorb nutrients due to damage to the lining of their gut. This can be caused by a variety of different reasons, including Inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In chronic pancreatitis, patients can no longer produce the enzymes that are crucial for digesting fats, proteins and carbohydrates. Liver disease can also prevent the release of bile into the small intestine. Bile helps to digest fats, and without dietary fats, the body cannot absorb fat-soluble vitamins.  

 

In such cases, taking vitamin supplements is often recommended.

The problem with supplements

"Vitamin and mineral supplements should not be used universally and most people do not need them," says JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who has conducted large-scale studies of vitamins and supplements. Instead she says a healthy balanced diet should be enough. "However, people with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and celiac disease are often unable to absorb fat adequately. That leads to deficiencies in fat soluble vitamins such as vitamin A, D, E and K. So taking a multivitamin in these cases could be very appropriate."

But vitamins are less readily absorbed in supplement form. So to overcome this, scientists are devising new ways of delivering vitamins to boost absorption. The key, it seems, are nanoparticles that form spontaneously around the vitamins. "They [the scientists investigating this] are trying to simulate what the body's already doing, but using other kinds of molecules that might not normally be found in foods," says McClements.

Nanoparticles are incredibly small, ranging from one to 100 nanometers (nm) wide. To put this into perspective, a human hair is roughly 80,000 to 100,000 nm thick. 

If we fed them salad dressing that had tiny fat droplets in, that really increased the amount of carotenoids that got absorbed – David Julian McClements

 

Meanwhile scientists at the University of Alberta in Canada found that encasing vitamin D within nanoparticles made from pea protein also increased absorption of the vitamin. 

McClements' own research, meanwhile, has shown that swallowing tablets of beta carotenoid – the precursor to vitamin A – with an emulsion of nano-sized fat globules, known as liposomes can boost the supplement's "bioavailability" – the amount of vitamin that is absorbed into the blood – by 20%. Good sources of carotenoids include brightly coloured fruits and vegetables such as carrots, broccoli, leafy greens and tomatoes. In one study, McClements asked people to eat a salad either with or without the nanoparticles. The salad contained 50g of baby spinach, 50g of romaine lettuce, 70g of shredded carrots and 90g of cherry tomatoes.

"If you gave them the salad alone, very little carotenoids actually went into the bloodstream because without any fat the vitamins don't get dissolved in your gastrointestinal fluids," says McClements."But then if we fed them the salad with a kind of salad dressing that had very, very tiny fat droplets in, that really increased the amount of carotenoids that got absorbed in the bloodstream."

The power of seasoning

And this is where the black pepper comes in. When McClements and his team added black pepper to the salad and dressing, it boosted the absorption even more.

Cells in the lining of the intestine often have transporters that can kick out nutrients that have been absorbed, passing them back into the gastrointestinal tract. However a chemical in black pepper blocks these transporters, allowing more vitamin or carotenoids to be absorbed into your bloodstream.

 Then McClements had a revelation – this approach had already existed for thousands of years.

"We did years of work on trying to improve the bioavailability of curcumin [a compound found in turmeric]," he says. "We compared all these different delivery systems made out of proteins or fats or carbohydrates, and it turned out the best one was these little lipid droplets that look a lot like milk that you put the curcumin in." 

"I was walking around our town, and they had this golden milk advertised. It was a really traditional, ancient Indian drink. And basically it's exactly the same formulation that we created, but they did it 1,000 years ago."

 The ancient Indian drink consisted of turmeric mixed with a milk product, with added black pepper. 

 McClements and his colleagues have shown that high concentrations of curcumin can be loaded into cow milk and remain stable for at least two weeks if kept refrigerated. Most recently, they have also been experimenting with adding the compound to plant-based milks.

Salad dressing matters

So, fancy new vitamin formulations aside, is there anything we can all do to increase our vitamin absorption? According to McClements, if you're going to have vitamin supplements, it's a good idea to take them alongside a meal that has fat in it.

"Ideally you want something that contains small particles of fat, like a milk or a yoghurt," he says.

 It's also important to note that while plants are packed with healthy vitamins, they also often contain "antinutrients" – molecules that can interfere with the body's ability to absorb certain nutrients. For instance broccoli and Brussels sprouts contain glucosinolates, which can interfere with the absorption of iodine. Leafy green vegetables, meanwhile, are rich in compounds called oxalates which bind to calcium and stop it from being absorbed. However, as long as a variety of plants are consumed, the health benefits of such foods outweigh any potential negative nutritional effects.

 Finally, if you're going to treat yourself to that juicy succulent salad, your choice of salad dressing or oil could make all the difference.  One recent study by McClements and his colleague Ruojie Zhang at the University of Missouri revealed that pairing kale – a highly nutritious vegetable full of carotenoids, vitamins C and E – with an olive oil-based dressing can help to unlock more of those nutrients for your body.

The finding could be one of the reasons that diets high in olive oil alongside fresh fruit and vegetables, such as the Mediterranean diet, are often found to be so healthy. 

"We found that nanoparticles made out of olive oil really boosted the bioavailability of carotenoids, whereas ones made out of coconut oil didn't at all," says McClements.

"It's because coconut oil forms quite small micelles, and carotene is too big to fit inside them. It's like trying to get an elephant into a Mini Cooper – sometimes you need a bigger vehicle."

How to Protest Safely in the Age of Surveillance by Andy Greenberg & Lily Hay Newman

 Law enforcement has more tools than ever to track your movements and access your communications. Here’s how to protect your privacy if you plan to protest.

 

Just days into 2026, fresh anger against the Trump administration has already taken hold.

On Wednesday, January 7, a federal immigration officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good as she attempted to drive away from the scene of an immigration enforcement action in a Minneapolis, Minnesota, neighborhood. Despite Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem's claims that the officer “acted quickly and defensively, shot, to protect himself and the people around him” from being run over, video of the incident clearly appears to show that neither the officer nor his colleagues were in danger of being hit by Good's vehicle.

 Protests condemning the shooting—and the Trump administration's brutish immigration agenda more broadly—sparked almost immediately after news of Good's killing surfaced. By Thursday, the unrest had only intensified and spread to towns and cities around the United States.

 If you're going to join any protests, as is your right under the First Amendment, you need to think beyond your physical well-being to your digital security, too. The same surveillance apparatus that’s enabling the Trump administration’s raids of undocumented people and targeting of left-leaning activists will no doubt be out in full force on the streets.

 Two key elements of digital surveillance should be top of mind for protestors. One is the data that authorities could potentially obtain from your phone if you are detained, arrested, or they confiscate your device. The other is surveillance of all the identifying and revealing information that you produce when you attend a protest, which can include wireless interception of text messages and more, and tracking tools like license plate scanners and face recognition. You should be mindful of both.

 

After all, even before Good's killing, police had already demonstrated their willingness to arrest and attack entirely peaceful protesters as well as journalists observing demonstrations. In that light, you should assume that any digital evidence that you were at or near a protest could be used against you.

“The Trump administration is weaponizing essentially every lever of government to shut down, suppress, and curtail criticism of the administration and of the US government generally, and there have never been more surveillance toys available to law enforcement and to US government agencies,” says Evan Greer, the deputy director of the activist organization Fight for the Future, who also wrote a helpful X (then-Twitter) thread laying out digital security advice during the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. “That said, there are a number of very simple, concrete things that you can do that make it exponentially more difficult for someone to intercept your communications, for a bad actor to ascertain your real-time location, or for the government to gain access to your private information.”

 

Your Phone

The most important decision to make before leaving home for a protest is whether to bring your phone—or what phone to bring. A smartphone broadcasts all sorts of identifying information; law enforcement can force your mobile carrier to cough up data about what cell towers your phone connects to and when. Police in the US have also been documented using so-called stingray devices, or IMSI catchers, that impersonate cell towers and trick all the phones in a certain area into connecting to them. This can give cops the individual mobile subscriber identity number of everyone at a protest at a given time, undermining the anonymity of entire crowds en masse.

“The device in your pocket is definitely going to give off information that could be used to identify you,” says Harlo Holmes, director of digital security at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a nonprofit press advocacy group. (Disclosure: WIRED’s global editorial director, Katie Drummond, serves on Freedom of the Press Foundation’s board.)

 

For that reason, Holmes suggests that protesters who want anonymity leave their primary phone at home altogether. If you do need a phone for coordination or as a way to call friends or a lawyer in case of an emergency, keep it off as much as possible to reduce the chances that it connects to a rogue cell tower or Wi-Fi hot spot being used by law enforcement for surveillance. Sort out logistics with friends in advance so you only need to turn your phone on if something goes awry. Or to be even more certain that your phone won’t be tracked, keep it in a Faraday bag that blocks all of its radio communications. Open the bag only when necessary. Holmes herself uses and recommends the Mission Darkness Faraday bag.

If you do need a mobile device, consider bringing only a secondary phone you don’t use often, or a burner. Your main smartphone likely has the majority of your digital accounts and data on it, all of which law enforcement could conceivably access if they confiscate your phone. But don’t assume that any backup phone you buy will grant you anonymity. If you give a prepaid carrier your identifying details, after all, your “burner” phone could be no more anonymous than your primary device. “Don’t expect because you got it from Duane Reade that you’re automatically a character from The Wire,” Holmes cautions.

Since properly using a burner phone can be impractical at best, Holmes says you may be better off using a secondary phone that excludes things like social media, email, and messaging apps. These apps and accounts can contain highly private information that could be exposed to anyone who seizes it. “Choosing a secondary device that limits the amount of personal data that you have on you at all times is probably your best protection,” Holmes says.

Regardless of what phone you’re using, consider that traditional calls and text messages are vulnerable to surveillance. That means you need to use end-to-end encryption. Ideally, you and those you communicate with should use disappearing messages set to self-delete after a few hours or days. The encrypted messaging and calling app Signal has perhaps the best and longest track record. Just make sure you and the people you’re communicating with are using the same app, since they’re not interoperable.

Aside from protecting your phone’s communications from surveillance, be prepared in the event police seize your device and try to unlock it in search of incriminating evidence. The first order of business is to make sure your smartphone’s contents are encrypted. iOS devices have full disk encryption on by default if you enable an access lock. For Android phones, go to Settings, then Security to make sure the Encrypt Disk option is turned on. (These steps may differ depending on your specific device.)

Regardless of your operating system, always protect devices with a long, strong passcode rather than a fingerprint or face unlock. As convenient as biometric unlocking methods are, it may be more difficult to resist an officer forcing your thumb onto your phone’s sensor, for instance, than to refuse to tell them a passcode. So if you use biometrics day-to-day for convenience, disable them before heading into a protest.

 

If you insist on using biometric unlocking methods to have faster access to your devices, keep in mind that some phones have an emergency function to disable these types of locks. Hold the wake button and one of the volume buttons simultaneously on an iPhone, for instance, and it will lock itself and require a passcode to unlock rather than FaceID or TouchID, even if they’re enabled. Most devices also let you take photos or record video without unlocking them first, a good way to keep your phone locked as much as possible.

Your Face

Face recognition has become one of the most powerful tools to identify your presence at a protest. Consider wearing a face mask and sunglasses to make it far more difficult for you to be identified by face recognition in surveillance footage or social media photos or videos of the protest. Fight for the Future’s Greer cautions, however, that the accuracy of the most effective face recognition tools available to law enforcement remains something of an unknown, and a simple surgical mask or KN95 may no longer be enough to defeat well-honed face-tracking tech.

 

If you’re serious about not being identified, she says, a full-face mask may be far safer—or even a Halloween-style one. “I've seen people wear funny cosplay-style cartoon masks or mascot suits or silly costumes,” says Greer, offering as an example Donald Trump and Elon Musk masks that she’s seen protesters wear at Tesla Takedown protests against Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). “That's a great way to defy facial recognition and also make the protest more fun.”

You should also consider the clothes you’re wearing before you head out. Colorful clothing or prominent logos makes you more recognizable to law enforcement and easier to track. If you have tattoos that make you identifiable, consider covering them.

Greer cautions, though, that preventing determined surveillance-empowered agencies from learning the mere fact that you attended a protest at all is increasingly difficult. For those of you in the most sensitive positions—such as undocumented immigrants at risk of deportation—she suggests that you consider staying home rather than depend on any obfuscation technique to mask their presence at an event.

Another factor to weigh is your mode of transportation. Driving a car to a protest—whether it's yours or someone else's—can expose you to surveillance from automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, which can be used to pinpoint a vehicle’s movements. You should also be aware that, in addition to license plates, these ALPRs can detect other words and phrases, including those on bumper stickers, signs, and even T-shirts.

 

More broadly, everyone who attends a protest needs to consider—perhaps more than ever before—what their tolerance for risk might be, from mere identification to the possibility of arrest or detention. “I think it's important to say that protesting in the US now comes with higher risks than it used to—it comes with a real possibility of physical violence and mass arrest,” says Danacea Vo, the founder of Cyberlixir, a cybersecurity provider for nonprofits and vulnerable communities. “Even just compared to protests that happened last month, people were able to just show up barefaced and march. Now things have changed.”

Your Online Footprint

Though most privacy and security considerations for attending an in-person protest naturally relate to your body, any devices you bring with you, and your physical surroundings, there are a set of other factors to think about online. It’s important to understand how posts on social media and other platforms before, during, or after a protest could be collected and used by authorities to identify and track you or others. Simply saying on an online platform that you are attending or attended a protest puts the information out there. And if you take photos or videos during a protest, that content could be used to expand law enforcement’s view of who attended a protest and what they did while there, including any strangers who appear in your images or footage.

Authorities can come to your online presence by looking for information about you in particular, but can also arrive there using bulk data analysis tools like Dataminr that offer law enforcement and other customers real-time monitoring connecting people to their online activity. Such tools can also surface past posts, and if you’ve ever made violent comments online or alluded to committing crimes—even as a joke—law enforcement could discover the activity and use it against you if you are questioned or arrested during a protest. This is a particular concern for people living in the US on visas or those whose immigration status is tenuous. The US State Department has said explicitly that it is monitoring immigrants’ and travelers’ social media activity.

 

In addition to written posts, keep in mind that files you upload to social media might contain metadata like time stamps and location information that could help authorities track protest crowds and movement. Make sure you have permission to photograph or videotape any fellow protesters who would be potentially identifiable in your content. Also think carefully before livestreaming. It’s important to document what’s going on but difficult to be sure that everyone who could show up in your stream is comfortable being included.

Even if you take photos and videos that you don’t plan to post on social media or otherwise share, remember that this media could fall into law enforcement’s hands if they demand access to your device.

With the Trump administration ramping up its attempts to target and punish left-leaning people and organizations, Cyberlixir’s Vo argues that people must assess the risks of every demonstration or other situation and judge for themselves the benefits of maintaining their personal privacy against the need to document the actions of government agents.

“Social media monitoring and online profiling is the factor that lots of people forget. Those who publish footage on social media should avoid sharing photos or videos that reveal people's faces,” she says. “But I also believe that documenting what’s going on is essential, especially in high-risk conditions, because when the state escalates we need proof for legal defense, for public record, for future organizing, and also to keep ourselves physically safe in real time.”

As protests continue—with the real possibility of even further escalated response from the Trump administration—be prepared for the emergence of forms of digital surveillance that have never been used in the US before to counter civil disobedience or to retaliate against protesters after the fact. Protesters will need to stay vigilant, and Fight for the Future’s Greer emphasizes that everyone has different potential vulnerabilities and tolerance for risk. For people of every category of risk, however, a few thoughtful privacy protections can go a long way towards empowering them to hit the streets.

“Part of the goal of governments extending and implementing mass surveillance programs is to scare people and make people think twice before they speak up,” Greer says. “I think that we should be very careful in this moment not to fall into that trap.”