TL;DR of the TL;DR: The Davis-Bacon Act is construction’s Jones Act – a self-inflicted wound that jacks up costs, kills competition, and makes it way harder to get stuff built.

TL;DR: The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was meant to ensure “prevailing” fair wages on federally funded construction projects. Nearly a century later, however, this well-intentioned law is driving up construction costs, adding red tape, and pricing out small contractors – ultimately undermining our ability to build affordable housing and critical infrastructure. This effortpost analyzes how the Act’s prevailing wage rules inflate labor costs (due to flawed Labor Department calculations), shares real-world case studies of cost overruns and delays, examines the heavy compliance burdens (especially on small businesses), and reviews data from across the political spectrum (Cato, Brookings, GAO, CBO, etc.). It concludes with ideas for modernizing or reforming Davis-Bacon to get more bang for the taxpayer’s buck while still paying workers fair wages. Grab a drink, this is a deep dive into one major reason why it’s so expensive to “build back better” in America.

Background: From Fair Wages to Heavy Burdens

The Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) is a New Deal-era law passed in 1931 that requires contractors on federal construction projects to pay their workers at least the “prevailing wage” for the area. In theory, this prevents government projects from undercutting local wage standards – a response to Depression-era fears of cheap labor driving down pay. At the time, Congress intended to ensure fair wages and prevent exploitive contractors from importing low-paid labor to underbid local firms​. (Some historians also note racial motivations - the Act’s sponsors wanted to exclude African-American workers from undercutting white union labor​ - but the stated goal was protecting workers’ pay.)

Under Davis-Bacon, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) determines the prevailing wage (plus fringe benefits) for each trade and locality, and those rates are written into federal construction contracts. The law covers a wide range of projects, from highways and bridges to affordable housing built with federal funds, and applies to any construction contract over $2,000​

Yes, a threshold of just $2,000, set in 1931, which today would be about $40,000 if adjusted for inflation meaning even the smallest of projects can trigger Davis-Bacon requirements. Contractors must pay workers at least the DOL-specified wage for their job classification, file extremely onerous weekly certified payroll reports, and comply with various labor standards or face penalties​.

Fast forward to 2025: Davis-Bacon’s seemingly noble intent has run up against some harsh realities. Numerous audits and studies have found that the Labor Department’s prevailing wage calculations are often inaccurate and outdated, causing mandated wages to far exceed market rates​. These inflated labor costs translate into higher price tags for public projects - meaning taxpayers pay more for less construction.

Compliance is bureaucracy-heavy, deterring many small businesses from bidding on public works​. And real-world cases show Davis-Bacon requirements contributing to project delays, cost overruns, and even cancellations, from federal highways to low-income housing developments. In short, a law crafted in the era of Hoover and FDR is straining the ability of today’s America to build infrastructure and affordable housing efficiently.

Prevailing Wage Calculations: Methodology Flaws & Inflated Costs

At the heart of Davis-Bacon is the concept of the “prevailing wage." Ideally, the average wage paid to workers in a given trade and area. The problem is how those rates are determined. The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division conducts surveys to set prevailing wages, but multiple investigations have found serious flaws in the methodology. The surveys are non-scientific and suffer low response rates, and they often end up reflecting union wage scales even when only a minority of the local workforce is unionized​.

For example, a 2017 Heritage Foundation (I know, I know) analysis found DOL uses “unscientific and flawed methods,” including tiny, non-representative samples and even using data from entirely different counties or outdated surveys​. Nearly half of the prevailing wage surveys were over a decade old, failing to reflect current market conditions​. The DOL’s own Inspector General reported back in 1997 that inaccurate data were frequently used in Davis-Bacon wage determinations, with significant errors in 15% of the wage reports audited. In short, the prevailing wage often isn’t truly “prevailing” at all.

What do these flaws mean in practice? Generally, they result in mandated wages that are significantly higher than the actual market wages in many areas. Contractors must pay the higher of either the union scale or the weighted average from survey data – often effectively a union rate. According to a Congressional Joint Economic Committee review, Davis-Bacon wage rates average 22% above local market wage levels on federal projects​. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) similarly found prevailing wages were consistently and significantly higher than Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) averages for the same occupations. For instance, one analysis showed common highway construction jobs had Davis-Bacon rates 20% to 47% higher than the BLS-reported average wage for those jobsl.

When mandated wages are 20–30% above what non-federal projects would pay, the cost of labor on public works shoots up accordingly. Labor often comprises 20–50% of a construction project’s cost, so an artificial 20+% wage premium can add 5–10% (or more) to total project costs. The Beacon Hill Institute estimated in 2022 that Davis-Bacon raises construction costs by at least 7.2% on average, costing taxpayers an extra $21 billion per year​. That figure aligns with earlier studies in various states (e.g. a university study found prevailing wage laws increased school construction costs by 8–14%​). Even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) acknowledges the effect: CBO estimates that repealing Davis-Bacon would reduce federal construction costs by about 0.9% – roughly $20–24 billion in savings over a decade​abc.org. In other words, the federal government could build the same roads, bridges, and buildings for billions less if market wage rates prevailed. All this suggests the “prevailing” wages under current surveys are well above what a competitive market would set, forcing the public sector to overpay for construction labor.

Why haven’t these issues been fixed? GAO and the DOL IG have urged reforms for years (e.g. using statistically valid sampling and current data, or even using BLS wage data directly), but bureaucratic inertia and political pressure (unions strongly defend the status quo) have stalled major changes​. Notably, legislation has been proposed in Congress – the Responsibility in Federal Contracting Act – to require the use of BLS data to calculate prevailing wages.

Economists across the spectrum agree that if we’re going to have a wage floor, it should be calculated with modern, accurate methods, not 1930s-style surveys. As a Brookings Institution analysis bluntly stated, “Davis-Bacon mandates…effectively require ‘prevailing’ union wages (often much higher than the actually prevailing market wage) [and] drive up the costs” of federal project. When a prevailing wage determination is off by a wide margin, taxpayers end up footing a bloated bill.

Real-World Impacts: Cost Overruns, Delays, and Fewer Projects Built

It’s one thing to talk about percentages and averages; it’s another to see how Davis-Bacon impacts actual projects on the ground. There’s ample evidence that these inflated wages contribute to higher costs and even project delays or cancellations in federal, state, and local construction:

• Federal Infrastructure Projects: Because Davis-Bacon applies to most federally-funded transportation and infrastructure work, the cost inflation aggregates to huge sums. The Heritage Foundation found that Davis-Bacon’s requirements likely inflate highway construction costs by anywhere from 5% to 38% (depending on the region)​. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Inspector General and GAO have reported that “excessive project costs” due in part to Davis-Bacon are straining the Highway Trust Fund​. In fact, the Highway Trust Fund, which finances most federal road projects, has needed repeated taxpayer bailouts – one factor being that every federally funded highway must pay these above-market wages. One Federal Highway Administration study of 20 large highway projects found cost overruns ranging up to 400% over initial estimates (though caused by many factors)​. Davis-Bacon isn’t solely to blame, but it certainly adds fuel to the fire of rising infrastructure costs.
• State and Local Decisions to Avoid Davis-Bacon: Perhaps the most telling evidence: many state and local agencies try to avoid using federal funds on smaller projects specifically to escape Davis-Bacon requirements. In a national GAO survey, several state DOTs admitted they sometimes decline federal funding for eligible projects to bypass the added costs and red tape. For example, a New Hampshire DOT official explained that the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement can “slow a project because it imposes payroll processing requirements that create additional administrative responsibilities, particularly for small…contractors”. As a result, New Hampshire uses state funds for many road resurfacing jobs to avoid burdening small contractors with Davis-Bacon rules​. GAO found this pattern in multiple states – effectively leaving federal money on the table because the strings attached (like Davis-Bacon) would delay the project or raise costs This is a lose-lose: local taxpayers then pay more, or projects are scaled down, because using federal funds isn’t worth the hassle.
• “Little Davis-Bacon” Repeals at the State Level: While not the federal law itself, many states have their own prevailing wage laws. Several have repealed or suspended them in recent years, offering a natural experiment. Michigan temporarily suspended its prevailing wage law in 1994–1997 and saw construction employment jump 48% in the following 30 months​. A study of the suspension estimated that Michigan’s state and local governments saved up to $275 million in 1995 alone (about 5% of the state’s capital spending) thanks to lower project bids​. More recently, states like West Virginia (repealed in 2016) and Kentucky (repealed in 2017) reported millions in savings on school and road construction after repeal, with no clear loss of quality​. These state cases suggest that when prevailing wage mandates are lifted, project costs drop or more projects get built for the same money. It’s reasonable to infer similar potential at the federal level.
• Affordable Housing Projects: Davis-Bacon doesn’t only hit highways and bridges – it also applies to federally subsidized housing construction (e.g. if a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit project also receives certain federal funds or HUD grants, prevailing wages kick in). Affordable housing developers often cite Davis-Bacon as a big cost driver. A UC Berkeley/Terner Center study found that prevailing wage rules can increase low-income housing construction costs by anywhere from 9% to 37%​. The wide range depends on local wage differentials – areas with large union wage gaps see the higher end. In high-cost markets like New York City, estimates have found prevailing wage mandates add roughly 23% to affordable housing costs. The New York City Independent Budget Office projected that requiring Davis-Bacon wages on certain affordable projects (under the 421a program) would cost an additional $4.2 billion, hiking construction costs by **23% (about $80,000 extra per apartment unit)**​. That means 23% fewer units can be built with the same funds – a huge impact when affordable housing dollars are scarce. In California, an analysis showed that if private residential projects had to pay prevailing wages, it could raise costs ~37% and add ~$84,000 to the cost of a typical home​, which illustrates why affordable housing advocates worry about these requirements.
• Case Study – Mountain View, CA: A recent saga in Mountain View (Silicon Valley) illustrates how prevailing wage can make or break a project. A developer (Prometheus Real Estate) was willing to preserve some existing low-rent apartments if allowed to build new market-rate units. The city initially welcomed the deal. But there was a catch: if any city funds or incentives were used, it would trigger prevailing wage requirements for the rehabilitation of the old apartments and possibly the new construction. At a 2019 city council meeting, the developer warned that having to pay prevailing wages would add $2 million to the cost of rehabbing 48 apartments, and a whopping $40 million more to the cost of constructing 17 new affordable units – making the project financially infeasible​. The council, alarmed, scrambled for alternatives, but ultimately the prospect of an extra $40 million cost (solely due to labor rules) nearly derailed the effort. This is $40 million that could have built more homes or been used elsewhere, but instead would go just to meet wage mandates far above what the project’s contractors would normally pay. Mountain View’s experience is not unique – across the country, affordable housing developers often have to either find much more subsidy to cover Davis-Bacon costs or forgo federal/local funding (if possible) to avoid the requirement. Either way, fewer affordable units get built.

In sum, Davis-Bacon’s impact is felt in delayed and costlier public works. When agencies avoid using federal funds for fear of burdens, when contractors pad their bids knowing the labor costs will be high, or when projects shrink in scope due to budget overruns, the public loses. The Act’s requirements don’t just transfer money to workers; they often result in projects not happening in the first place (or not as many). And ironically, some evidence suggests paying above-market wages doesn’t necessarily buy higher-skilled labor or better quality – numerous studies have found no significant difference in workmanship or safety on projects without prevailing wage, likely because contractors already must meet performance standards and market wages adjust to attract needed skills. In any case, the next time you see a bridge overbudget or an affordable housing project stalled, Davis-Bacon often deserves a slice of the blame pie alongside other usual suspects (environmental reviews, NIMBY lawsuits, etc.).

Compliance Burdens: Paperwork, Audits, and Small Business Headaches

Beyond the direct dollars-and-cents cost, Davis-Bacon brings a mountain of paperwork and compliance burden that especially weighs on small construction firms. The law’s administrative requirements might be manageable for a big contractor with a compliance department, but for a smaller company, navigating these rules can be a nightmare – one that deters many from even attempting to bid on federal work.

The main compliance obligations include:

• Certified Weekly Payrolls: Contractors must pay workers weekly (instead of biweekly, etc.) and submit a detailed certified payroll report every week to the contracting agency​. This report must list every worker, their classification, hours, hourly pay, fringe benefits, and deductions – basically a full accounting of each paycheck – along with a signed statement of compliance. For a firm not used to federal projects, just learning to fill out these forms correctly is a hurdle. Any error can trigger withholding of payment or an investigation.
• Onsite Postings and Interviews: The Davis-Bacon poster and the prevailing wage determination for the project must be prominently posted at the jobsite. Workers are informed they should be getting the posted wage. It’s not uncommon for DOL investigators to conduct random worker interviews on-site to verify they’re being paid the stated rates. While ensuring compliance is fine, these interviews can catch contractors off-guard if, say, a worker was misclassified under the wrong job category or is unclear about reporting.
• Recordkeeping: Contractors have to maintain detailed payroll records for 3 years after completion​. This includes information on every employee’s address, Social Security number (last four digits), work classification, pay rate, hours each day and week, fringe benefit contributions, and any apprenticeship program status​. This level of recordkeeping exceeds typical business practice and essentially forces companies to institute specialized payroll tracking for Davis-Bacon jobs.
• Audits and Investigations: If the DOL or contracting agency suspects a violation (or a worker complains), an audit can ensue. Underpayments must be compensated with back wages and potentially liquidated damages. Willful violators can face debarment for up to 3 years, meaning they are barred from any federal contracts. Agencies can also withhold payment on the contract until issues are resolved​. The legal exposure is real: even an inadvertent payroll mistake, if not corrected, can escalate. In some cases, False Claims Act lawsuits have been brought against contractors for certifying compliance when they unknowingly made filing mistakes.

All this bureaucracy has a cost in time and money. A survey of contractors by the Federal Acquisition Advisory Panel found Davis-Bacon compliance was among the most burdensome requirements in federal contracting, particularly for firms without dedicated HR compliance staff. One small contractor commented that the paperwork “took more time than the actual work on small jobs.” Another said they had to hire an outside consultant just to handle the wage reporting on a single project, adding thousands in overhead.

Crucially, these burdens discourage small and mid-sized businesses from participating. Testimony gathered by the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy in 2022 confirms this: “current DBRA wage costs and regulatory burdens already dissuade many subcontractors from bidding on federal projects*.”*​ Many subcontractors (who are often smaller firms) simply opt out of working on Davis-Bacon jobs because the compliance risk and hassle aren’t worth it. This reduces the pool of bidders, often leaving mainly larger, unionized contractors. Less competition can lead to higher bids, compounding the cost problem.

The SBA Advocacy report shared a striking example: a home builder doing two identical multifamily projects side by side – one subject to Davis-Bacon and one not. The project with Davis-Bacon ended up 30% higher in cost than the identical project without it​. The builder also noted that many of their usual subcontractors refused to work on the Davis-Bacon job at all, due to the wage rules and paperwork​. This forced them to find (and often pay more for) subs who were willing to deal with the requirements. For a small firm, even a 5–10% cost increase can make the difference between winning a bid or losing money on a job – so a 30% cost jump is devastating. It’s no wonder that, in practice, a lot of federal construction dollars end up concentrated in a smaller number of large contractors.

It’s important to note that compliance costs hit public agencies too. Every federally-assisted project requires oversight – city housing departments and state highway agencies must devote staff to reviewing certified payrolls, conducting on-site wage interviews, and coordinating with DOL. I myself am a federal worker that works for the Public Buildings Service. If we have a leak in a building and need to complete a repair that's more than $2000, this work can take weeks due to Davis-Bacon.

Many local agencies lack capacity, causing delays in approvals and added administrative expense that ultimately gets billed to the project. For example, the City of Seattle noted that fulfilling Davis-Bacon monitoring on a single affordable housing project took hundreds of staff hours that could have been spent on other housing work. All of this bureaucracy acts like sand in the gears of project delivery.

Impact on Small and Disadvantaged Businesses

An often-overlooked aspect is how Davis-Bacon may inadvertently perpetuate inequalities in the construction industry. Smaller firms, including many minority-owned, women-owned, or rural contractors, are less likely to be unionized and often pay somewhat lower (but still decent) wages that reflect local market conditions. These firms can be very competitive on price. But when forced to pay union-scale wages and handle union-level paperwork, they lose their edge or choose not to participate. This tilts the playing field toward larger unionized firms (which, historically, have had lower representation of minority workers, one of the original criticisms of Davis-Bacon’s effect on racial equality​). Essentially, Davis-Bacon can act as a barrier to entry for emerging contractors, locking in the incumbent players.

In public contracting, there’s constant talk of expanding opportunities for minority-owned business (MBE) and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE). Yet prevailing wage laws may be working at cross purposes with those goals by imposing a one-size-fits-all labor cost structure. A 2015 study in Wisconsin found that the way prevailing wages were determined led to wage rates that were “more costly in low-wage, low-income counties” and tended to price out less-experienced workers (since contractors must hire the higher-skilled, higher-paid workers to meet the rate)​. In effect, a small firm that might train a novice for $15/hour can’t do so on a Davis-Bacon job if the prevailing wage for that trade is $30 – they’d have to hire a union journeyman or pay the trainee double what they normally earn, which is often not viable.

To sum up, the compliance burdens and rigid wage rules of Davis-Bacon reduce the diversity and number of firms willing to build public projects. This lack of competition and innovation can only hurt the public interest in the long run. We want more bidders, including small local businesses, to get efficient and creative solutions – not fewer bidders due to onerous regulations.

Davis-Bacon by the Numbers: What Research Shows

Let’s recap some data points from research and government analyses to gauge Davis-Bacon’s overall impact (drawing from across the political spectrum):

• Inflated Wages: Davis-Bacon rates average about 20% higher than market wages nationally​. GAO found an average 34% premium in a sample of counties for highway jobs​. Beacon Hill (a think tank) found Davis-Bacon wages are 20.2% above local market averages when measured using modern BLS data​.
• Higher Project Costs: Estimated to raise federal construction costs by roughly 0.9% of total spending (CBO)​; equating to $20+ billion over 10 years in federal outlays. In annual terms, that’s about $21 billion extra per year (Beacon Hill)​. Various academic studies of state repeals show public construction costs drop on the order of 10–15% after repeal​, with no loss in quality or safety recorded.
• Fewer Projects / Units: The flip side of cost is quantity. A given budget builds ~7–10% fewer infrastructure projects due to Davis-Bacon. For affordable housing, requiring prevailing wages can mean ~20% fewer units for the same subsidy (NYC’s 23% cost hike example​). This is a real trade-off: e.g., if an agency could have built 100 apartments, with prevailing wage it might only afford ~80. In an era of housing shortages, that’s significant.
• Administrative Burden: A 2008 GAO report noted that state officials cited Davis-Bacon as a source of project delays and a reason to avoid federal funds on smaller projects, especially because *“small contractors…may not understand what they must do to comply.”*​ The compliance cost is hard to quantify, but it effectively adds a hidden “admin tax” on projects. CBO specifically mentions that repealing Davis-Bacon would save money not just from wage reduction but also by “reducing contractors’ administrative costs associated with compliance.”
• Broader Economic Effects: A study by the Anderson Economic Group found that in Illinois, repeal of prevailing wage could save 10% on public construction costs and potentially add 14,000 new construction jobs over a decade (by stretching budgets and undertaking more projects)​. Similarly, Michigan’s repeal was associated with job growth in construction​. The converse is that Davis-Bacon may reduce overall employment in construction by raising costs (fewer projects means fewer jobs).
• Who Benefits?: The primary beneficiaries are the workers who receive the above-market wages (and the unions who get a more level playing field against lower-wage competition). However, it’s worth noting that not all workers benefit – only those on federal jobs, which are a minority of construction work (about 20% of construction is subject to Davis-Bacon). And these tend to be union members more often than not. Meanwhile, workers who might have been employed on additional projects (if costs were lower) lose out on those job opportunities. So there’s a concentrated gain for some workers, but a diffuse loss of jobs and income for others in the sector.
• Bipartisan Analysis: While left-leaning groups like the Economic Policy Institute often defend prevailing wage laws (arguing they promote training and higher productivity), even moderate and liberal economists acknowledge the cost issue. For instance, a Brookings Institution piece on infrastructure noted that Davis-Bacon mandates “drive up the costs of roads and other projects” and identified repealing/reforming Davis-Bacon as a way to “wring wasteful spending” out of stimulus investments. The Government Accountability Office has published over 25 reports on Davis-Bacon since the 1970s, repeatedly highlighting vulnerabilities in the wage-setting process and recommending changes​. And the Congressional Budget Office plainly lists Davis-Bacon repeal as a spending cut option that would save billions​. On the right, groups like Cato and Heritage call for outright repeal, citing it as a prime example of a 1930s protectionist policy (even dubbing it “Jim Crow” era legislation, due to its history) that doesn’t fit a modern dynamic economy​. The fact that even centrist voices say the law “needs reform” is telling – it’s not just a libertarian talking point.

Modernization and Reform: How to Build More for Less (Without Gutting Worker Pay)

If Davis-Bacon is a major culprit in driving up costs and slowing projects, what can be done? Some advocates argue for repealing the Act entirely, letting market wages prevail on public projects just as they do on private projects. In theory, this would maximize bang-for-buck – and as noted, CBO says it’d save ~$20 billion over 10 years. This is likely much more when you consider the bureaucratic burden and also the state/local levels). Repeal, however, is politically difficult. Labor unions staunchly defend Davis-Bacon, and many lawmakers worry about being seen as anti-worker if they support repeal. The good news is, short of repeal, there are pragmatic reforms that could preserve the Act’s basic intent (fair wages for workers on government jobs) while mitigating the worst inefficiencies:

• Use Accurate, Up-to-Date Data: Perhaps the single most impactful reform would be to overhaul how prevailing wages are determined. Instead of DOL’s creaky survey process, use scientific surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS already collects extensive wage data (via the Occupational Employment Statistics and National Compensation Survey programs). These could provide a much larger sample and more timely snapshot of actual prevailing wages. GAO has suggested allowing DOL to use broader geographic groupings (like metro areas) or BLS data to set rates​. In fact, bipartisan bills to require BLS-derived prevailing wages have been introduced (e.g., H.R. 924 in 2015)​. If Davis-Bacon rates truly reflected the real local median wage, the cost premium would shrink dramatically – possibly saving 10-15% on some projects without changing any other aspect of the law​.
• The Department of Labor could implement many methodology improvements administratively as well (and did propose some updates in 2022–23, though critics argue those changes mostly raised rates further). Modernizing the wage calculations would address the core inflationary bias.
• Raise the Project Threshold: The $2,000 threshold is absurdly low today – it means even repainting a small post office can invoke Davis-Bacon. Raising the threshold to a more meaningful level (e.g. $100,000 or more) would exempt minor projects and small businesses from the Act. This idea has been floated in the past. In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration raised the threshold administratively to $2,000 for repairs and $15,000 for new construction (and even proposed $100k), but a court struck this down as inconsistent with the statute’s $2,000 figure. Thus, Congress would have to act to change it. If adjusted for inflation since 1931, $2,000 would be roughly ~$35,000–$40,000 today, so even setting a threshold around that level (and indexing it to inflation going forward) would make sense. It would free many small-scale local projects (park shelters, routine road resurfacing, etc.) from Davis-Bacon, reducing burden on contractors and agencies. The vast majority of construction dollars (big projects) would still be covered, focusing the law where it matters most.
• Simplify Compliance: Streamlining the reporting and certification process can reduce the burden. For instance, allowing electronic certified payroll submissions and integrating them with existing payroll software could save time. DOL could also provide an online portal where contractors input data once and it auto-checks against wage requirements. Additionally, clearer guidance and training for small contractors (possibly a pre-bid workshop on compliance) could help demystify the process. Some have suggested a “safe harbor” for first-time small contractors – e.g. if minor paperwork mistakes are made, give a warning and help fix it rather than immediately penalizing. This could encourage more participation by newbies without undermining worker pay.
• Targeted Exemptions or Flexibility: Lawmakers could carve out certain categories from Davis-Bacon when it makes sense. For example, affordable housing funded by tax credits might be exempt if state/local agencies have their own wage standards, allowing more units to be built. Congress has occasionally provided Davis-Bacon waivers in emergency situations – Presidents FDR, Nixon, and Bush (41) temporarily suspended Davis-Bacon after natural disasters or during WWII to speed up work and stretch funds. Those precedents show that even leaders who support workers recognized at times the need for flexibility. One idea is to allow waivers for housing or infrastructure projects if costs come in significantly over budget due to prevailing wage, subject to approval by a high-level authority. Another idea from some housing advocates: offer a choice between paying Davis-Bacon wages or ensuring a certain percentage of local hiring from disadvantaged workers – i.e. give contractors an alternative way to fulfill a public interest goal if they can’t meet the wage rule.
• Periodic Review and Sunset: Given that Davis-Bacon has been on autopilot for decades, implementing a requirement to periodically review and reauthorize it could force reassessment of its costs and benefits. A sunset clause could be added such that Congress must vote every, say, 10 years to continue the Act, armed with fresh GAO/CBO analyses of its impact. This would at least ensure ongoing scrutiny and adjustments as needed, rather than letting a 1931 law chug along unchanged in 2031 and beyond.

It’s worth emphasizing that paying workers decently and getting projects done affordably do not have to be at odds. Many countries build infrastructure with good wages and reasonable costs – often through policies more flexible than a rigid prevailing wage mandate. Even within the U.S., most private construction projects find a balance, sometimes paying above the minimum to get skilled labor, other times hiring trainees at lower cost – all based on market needs. The government can likewise strike a better balance. For example, using BLS data might reveal that in some rural county, electricians typically make $25/hour, not the $40/hour union rate from a neighboring city – so a federal project there could reasonably pay $25 and still attract labor, rather than inflating to $40 and busting the budget. Or if a small business can do a job for less by training local workers, why shouldn’t they, as long as basic labor standards (like OSHA safety and at least minimum wage) are met?

Critics argue that lowering or eliminating prevailing wage requirements could reduce construction quality or worker livelihoods. However, numerous studies have found no significant drop in quality or safety in states post-repeal of prevailing wage laws​. Construction is inherently competitive and reputation-driven; contractors who do shoddy work don’t last long, regardless of wages paid. As for workers, the construction labor market today is much tighter than in 1931 – contractors often have to pay well above minimum wage anyway to find skilled tradespeople (in fact, many non-union contractors pay competitive wages to keep talent). And if cost savings from Davis-Bacon reform allow more projects to be built, that actually creates more construction jobs. Some of those will be entry-level at lower pay, sure, but many will be good-paying too – and importantly, more total work opportunities. The alternative under Davis-Bacon is fewer jobs but at a mandated high pay for those lucky enough to get them.

It’s possible to support fair wages and collective bargaining while still questioning an inefficient federal mandate. Market-friendly progressives may argue that we should help construction workers through stronger apprenticeship programs, portable benefits, or labor-neutral project agreements – rather than through a blunt wage rule that also acts as a giveaway to certain unions and contractors. There are smarter ways to support middle-class jobs in construction without the collateral damage of Davis-Bacon’s cost inflation.

Conclusion: Building More, Building Better

America urgently needs to build more – from roads and bridges to affordable housing – but outdated policies like the Davis-Bacon Act are getting in the way. What started as a Depression-era wage protection now often acts as a drag on efficiency, inflating labor costs, drowning contractors in paperwork, and pushing small businesses out of public works. Reforming or updating Davis-Bacon isn’t about undermining workers; it’s about making sure public dollars actually get things built.

Even if we keep wage standards, they should reflect real local rates, not inflated union scales from flawed surveys. Fixing Davis-Bacon could free up billions to build more infrastructure without raising taxes – like cutting the cost of a $100 million highway to $93 million, with the savings going to other critical projects. To move forward, we need a Davis-Bacon that works with the market, not against it, keeping fair wages while making public construction more efficient and accessible.

The purpose of this post is to answer a question I have seen many users on this sub ask over the last few weeks: who is pushing all this Afrikaner stuff in the United States?

The answer is an Afrikaner lobbying and civil society group known in South Africa as Afriforum. Together with Afriforum is another organization known as Solidarity, which is an Afrikaner trade union. Afriforum and Solidarity are not political parties, but are well-resourced and effective parts of the civil society advocating for the interests of Afrikaners. Together they both fall under the umbrella of the 'Solidarity Movement'.

The rest of this article explores the history of these organizations, their growing prominence in South Africa in recent years, their ideology and their beliefs.

Apartheid-era White Politics

To understand where these organizations come from, you have to start in the 80s.

During Apartheid, the party that governed under the White only elections was called the National Party) ('the Nats'). These are the people who designed and enforced Apartheid.

There were other parties that stood in opposition to the Nats. An early example were the United party of Jan Smuts. But towards the end of Apartheid, reformists from the United Party and other liberal parties coalesced into a liberal party known as the Progressive Federal Party ('the Progs'). These are White people who opposed Apartheid but participated in Parliamentary politics, like Helen Suzman.

In the 80s, the Nats began a process of trying to reform Apartheid by introducing some basic representation for Indian and Coloured people (but not Black people). They wanted to have a 'Tricameral Parliament' where Indians and Coloureds would be able to have their own representatives. When the talk of reforms began, a group in the National Party broke away in resistance to these reforms. They formed the Conservative Party).

The Conservative Party quickly overtook the Progs as the official opposition. During the 1992 referendum to end Apartheid, they campaigned for No which won 30% of the vote (White South Africans), which is about the same as their level of support in Parliament.

The Conservative Party represented White people to the right-wing of the National Party of Both and De Klerk. The opposed the end of Apartheid. They were far-right Afrikaner Nationalists.

During the negotiations to end Apartheid, members of the Conservative Party were involved in the assassination the leader of South Africa's Communist Party, Chris Hani.

There were people even further to the right of the Conservative Party, like the Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging (AWB). These right-wing terrorists were literally neo-Nazis who formed militias to terrorize negotiators and ordinary citizens.

So there was an entire political spectrum to the right of the National Party, that ran from the Conservative Party to neo-Nazis like the AWB. Many of these forces coalesced into militias united under the Afrikaner Volksfront, led by Constand Viljoen, a former military general.

The Volksfront attempted to assist the dictator of the Tswana Bantustan, Lucas Mangope, to maintain his rule in the face of pro-democracy/pro-ANC protests. The AWB (neo-Nazis) got involved against Mangope's wishes. Mangope wanted Viljoen and the more 'moderate' militia elements, often led by former army generals. Many senior leaders in the Volksfront were also wary of the AWB. The situation escalated dramatically and the entire plan failed spectacularly.

Viljoen then left the Volksfront and formed a political party which participated in the transition to democracy and the first elections. The party that Viljoen formed was called the Freedom Front.

The Freedom Front would eventually absorb those Afrikaner right-wing leaders who didn't want to run around with AWB neo-nazi militias, but who nonetheless were to the right of the National Party. Many of the leaders and members of the Conservative Party would end up in the Freedom Front.

The Freedom Front was thus the successor to the Conservative Party. It was founded by right-wing Afrikaners, from Parliamentarians to former defense officials acting as militia leaders during the tumultuous transition to democracy. But it stopped short of going into the territory of the militant neo-Nazis like the AWB.

Unlike the Conservative Party, the Freedom Front participated in the 1994 elections and ran on the idea of creating an Afrikaner ethnic enclave within South Africa, known as a Volkstaat. Charitably, this would be something like Afrikaner Quebec. Less charitably, it was an attempt to create a White Afrikaner ethnostate within the borders of South Africa, and any talk of co-existence was a pretext to declaring independence from South Africa and establishing an Afrikaner Republic.

In the final years of Apartheid and the first years of democracy, White South African politics thus went like this:

• Liberals who opposed Apartheid voted for the Progressive Freedom Party, which rebranded as the Democratic Party.
• Conservatives who supported Apartheid and opposed reforms and its end voted for the Conservative Party which evolved into the Freedom Front.
• Most White South Africans voted for the National Party led by FW de Klerk. This was the party the implemented Apartheid, but also, ultimately, negotiated its end. By the standards of Apartheid-era White South Africa, it was the 'center'.
• The far-far-right nutjobs were involved in militias and neo-Nazi type groups which were quickly brought under control.
• Genuine left-wing Whites voted for the ANC.

In the early 2000s, the National Party collapsed. Its leaders would scatter amongst many parties (including the ANC), but its membership moved almost entirely into the Democratic Party, which became the Democratic Alliance we know today.

The Freedom Front Plus picked up a few other microparties and rebranded as the Freedom Front Plus (FF+). Just as the National Party and Democratic Alliance included many Coloured voters, the Freedom Front Plus was also able to pick up a few prominent Coloured political leaders. They presented themselves as a party not merely for Afrikaners, but for 'minorities' in general. In practise, they would maintain a keen focus on Afrikaners in particular, with a link to the Coloured community through the Afrikaans language, of which Coloureds comprise the majority of speakers.

Afriforum and Solidarity

The Afrikaner Nationalists were unsuccessful in negotiating a Volkstaat for themselves. When the National Party collapsed in the early 2000s, most of those voters ended up in the DA rather than the FF+. The transition to democracy had gone well, and the economy was growing. Mandela's project was successful, and the ANC commanded supermajorities in Parliament which they exercised mostly responsibly. The appetite for Volkstaat 80s/90s panic was thus quite low, and Afrikaners began to lose interest in even moderate forms of these ideas. Politically, the Freedom Front Plus was very weak, even just within White and Coloured communities.

These conditions meant that the Afrikaner Nationalists had to modernize in order to maintain their relevance. In 2006, Afriforum was founded. Here is how it is described on its website:

AfriForum is a non-profit civil rights organisation that was established on 26 March 2006. The organisation was created to call up Afrikaners to participate in public debate and actions outside of the sphere of party politics

Afriforum worked together with a White trade union, Solidarity, to form the broader Solidarity Movement to mobilize Afrikaners outside of party politics. One of the founders of Afriforum, Kallie Kriel, is a former member of the Conservative Party and the Freedom Front Plus. It is that same political tradition brought into a much more modern form.

Afriforum is a very effective organization. It is not just a think tank, like the Heritage Foundation. Afriforum, together with the broader Solidarity movement, are active in undertaking practical projects and litigation to fix problems in failing communities. Here are some examples:

• They have established a network of community policing forums. These are neighbourhood and farm watch groups staffed by thousands of volunteers and working in coordination with the South African Police Service.
• They fixed potholes in the City of Pretoria and other municipalities, and organizing volunteers to assist local municipalities with basic services like grass-cutting.
• They have taken the government to court to interdict decisions that they view as reckless or irresponsible, for example donating money to Cuba or increasing electricity tariffs.
• They have also taken educational institutions to court when they choose to phase out Afrikaans-medium instruction in favour of an English-only model.
• They built an Afrikaans-medium private technical college from scratch in the city of Centurion, near Pretoria, on time and under budget to fight against the growing tide of English-medium only education, and they are currently planning to build a university.
• Establishing a private prosecutions unit (I believe it is the first in the country) to take on cases that the state prosecutors wrongly ignore. The Afriforum Private Prosecutions unit is headed up by Gerrie Nel, the renowned prosecutor who put Oscar Pistorious behind bars.
• They established a large media network called Maroela Media which is one of the largest Afrikaans-language media organizations in the country.

This competence has built Afriforum some credibility amongst Afrikaners and the broader society.

They couple this with a communication network led by effective, younger communicators on digital platforms. For example, their head of Public Relations, Ernst van Zyl, has a YouTube channel under the name the Conscious Caracal and publishes at the Daily Friend.

So the idea here is that Afriforum is not a political party. It's not about getting votes and cushy jobs and prestige. They are practical people just trying to build a better world. And they aren't just complaining. They're rolling up their sleeves and actually doing something. If you are even slightly right of center, then Afriforum's politics is the kind of politics that you probably find legitimate and respectable. Within the logic of right-wing politics - even moderate right-wing politics - Afriforum has earned the right to talk about concepts like self-determination through their competence and their exercise of self-reliance and responsibility.

Afriforum have taken off in Afrikaner communities. Their membership exceeds that which you might expect if it were one-to-one with Freedom Front Plus voters. It is their competent, practical projects and their non-partisan engagement that allows them to quietly build an authentic relationship within communities. It is also obvious that their political influence doesn't stop at the Freedom Front Plus but extends deep into the Democratic Alliance as a result of Afriforum's influence amongst the base.

These are the people that traveled to the US and begun to bring up Afrikaner issues as a salient topic in Trump world. And before we get to criticizing them, it is crucial to understand how they present positively: as practical, 'roll-up-your-sleeves' types who are smart, hard working and brave. Even if you are only slightly right of center, Afriforum, or at least the version of themselves they present, are impressive and seem legit.

Lobbying in the West

Afriforum began a campaign of lobbying in the United States and the West in May 2018. Afriforum sent their CEO, Kallie Kriel, and Deputy CEO, Dr. Ersnt Roets, to the United States. According to Tyler McBrien of the Council on Foreign Relations:

• They visited the CATO Institute, where they left one analyst convinced that the "explicitly racist" policies of the ANC government mirrored those under Apartheid
• They persuaded Australia's home affairs minister to call for visas to be issued for farmers
• Were featured on Tucker Carlson regarding farm murders

They also met the Heritage Foundation, Ted Cruz and John Bolton.

Later that year, President Donald Trump issued his first tweet about South Africa:

I have asked Secretary of State u/SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. “South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.” @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews

He cited Tucker Carlson in the tweet and Afriforum took credit for it:

"We welcome it," said Ernst Roets. The group travelled to the US in May to lobby individual members of the US Senate and the House of Representatives. "I think our lobbying has certainly had an impact because we have spoken with a lot of people who have had contact with President Trump and we have spoken with many think tanks, one of them for example the Cato Institute, which has taken a very strong stance shortly before this statement now by President Trump."

This is how we know that it is Afriforum that is in Trump's ear, indirectly. Trump's interest in this issue predates Elon's involvement in the administration by years. I'm not saying Elon isn't contributing anything today. But the Afriforum-Carlson-Trump pipeline was clear from as early as 2018.

Afriforum's lobbying wasn't limited to the United States. They also travelled to Australia. After their lobbying there, the Australian Home Affairs minister indicated that he wanted to look at providing some sort of refugee intake for Afrikaners:

"I've asked the department to look at ways that we can provide some assistance. We could provide more visas for people potentially in the humanitarian program," Mr Dutton told 2GB radio on Thursday.

"If people are being persecuted, regardless of whether it's because of religion or the colour of their skin or whatever, we need to provide assistance where we can."

Mr Dutton said there were already large numbers of South African expatriates living in Australia.

"They work hard, they integrate well into Australian society, they contribute to make us a better country and they're the sorts of migrants that we want to bring into our country," he said.

On Wednesday, Mr Dutton told News Corp white South African farmers "deserve special attention" and "need help from a civilised country like ours", and the Home Affairs department was working with partners in the region, with an announcement likely to be forthcoming soon.

In 2024, Afriforum returned to the United States. Their leaders attended the National Conservative Conference (NATCON4). Dr. Roets gave a presentation about the The Afrikaner Philosophy of Fixing Your Own Problems. It's actually a really nice speech rhetorically, and again it speaks to that spirit of 'do it for yourself' which Afriforum can genuinely lay some claim to. Roets is quite smart and well read. He is educated in law and his arguments have depth and logic to them.

He and other voices in this world have a very clever and fascinating proposition which they like to put forward to Westerners: that Zimbabwe's past is South Africa's ongoing present is the future of the West. Roets didn't use the word DEI in this speech (from late 2024), but that's the key idea here: that a powerful + DEI will lead to other people coming in and using that state against you, and you are better off doing things at a small-scale, self-reliant community level. The history and experiences of the Afrikaners become a case study in the effects of progressive politics. I strongly encourage you to watch or listen to the speech.

Unfortunately, Roets often makes misleading claims and, more frequently, misleads audiences through omission. Westerners generally don't have enough of a background in the minutiae of South African history to poke holes in some of the arguments he makes. For example, in the speech he delivered at NATCON4, he contrasts the early 20th century Afrikaners who believed in self-help with those of the second half of the 20th century who believed in Big Government. He omits that it was the early 20th century Afrikaners who undertook a massive mineworkers strike and advocated for the government to maintain a Colour Bar that would prevent willing and able Black people from undertaking skilled work in the mines.

Mask Off

By all accounts, Afriforum's lobbying in the U.S. has been very successful. Donald Trump issued an executive order prioritising refugee settlement for Afrikaners as a direct consequence of their lobbying, and U.S. Congressmen have double down on this.

But, believe it or not, Afriforum isn't really happy with this. Because they don't want refugee status to escape South Africa, what they want is what the Afrikaner Nationalists have wanted since the transition to democracy - an ethnostate/enclave. There are many different and innovative ways to spin it, but that's basically the goal here. That is the reason why these organizations did not declare victory when Trump offered them refugee status, but instead submitted a memorandum requesting that

Aid be provided to an Afrikaner development fund to assist with community infrastructure protecting Afrikaners. This includes safety structures, social structures, job structures, training structures and infrastructure to settle Afrikaners in a concentrated manner

It's the Volkstaat again, folks.

In addition to having a questionable end goal, every now and then, representatives from these movements will go mask off and draw immense criticism as a result. Even if you limit yourself to criticism only from centrist and right wing White people, you are left with:

• Frans Cronje of the IRR think tank accusing them of releasing a documentary that attempted to sanitize Apartheid and telling them to apologize
• Gareth van Onselen, a prominent and fairly harsh liberal commentator, calling the same documentary disgraceful for its portrayal of Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of Apartheid
• Various academics circulating a letter of condemnation after Roets, in response to being fact-checked by an academic, quoted a Jewish writer Victor Klemperer, who wrote that if the tables were turned after the Holocaust he "would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest; they would be left hanging from the lamp posts for as long as was compatible with hygiene."
• Broad condemnation for Kallie Kriel, Afriforum's leader, for saying that Apartheid was not a crime against humanity but it was wrong.
• Constitutional Court Justice Edwin Cameron who raged in a judgment about Afriforum describing Apartheid as a 'so-called historical injustice'
• White MPs from the ANC, DA and ACDP for their presentation on land expropriation. The ANC MP, who formerly was a member of the National Party, equated them to one of the most extreme Black Radical groups in South Africa, BLF. The DA MP said she found that she could not align with them at all. And the ACDP MP said that Afriforum were taking us backwards. Video here.
• Max du Preez describing Afriforum's youth wing as "stormtroopers" and compared the mentality of Afriforum's supporters to the EFF on the other side of the aisle. I am not an Afrikaner and am not in all the Whatsapp groups and I don't go to community events. But du Preez says that in many circles pro-Afriforum are vicious and rabid in their defense of the organization, and they behave as cruel bullies.

Two things can be true at once. It is true that Afriforum are effective, capable and intelligent people who have built one of South Africa's most impactful NGOs/civil society organizations. It is also true that, the minute you scratch just a little bit deeper, you find Apartheid apologia, racism, authoritarianism, bullying and Christian nationalism.

Conclusion

We know who is influencing the Republican Party on Afrikaners - it's Afriforum and their sister organizations collectively known as the Solidarity Movement. These organizations ultimately trace their heritage back to the Conservative Party - the party formed to resist even the modest 'reforms' to Apartheid in the 80s.

These organizations are full of persuasive, competent and intelligent people. They are also built on horrible historical foundations, starting from the mission to preserve the Apartheid system even after the National Party had begun to give up on it. The content that they put out, and the conduct of their members, has led to some prominent and respected voices in White South African politics labelling these organizations as racist hateful bullies when they feel they have an opportunity to do so without being punished by their peers or through litigation.

These organizations have successfully modernized Afrikaner Nationalism for the digital, 21st century era. They have managed to sync up with right wing movements and media ecosystems across the Western world, and to portray a story of Afrikaner history which resonates deeply with the agenda and worldview of the global Western right - from America to Germany to Australia. The story that Afriforum tell about themselves is misleading, and the stories they tell about South Africa are effectively Apartheid denialism. But these stories are growing in reach as the West continues to embrace ethnonationalist right wing ideas.

The success of the Solidarity Movement have prompted other right wing White voices to also journey to the US. The Cape Independence Advocacy Group has announced they will be going to the US, as have representatives from the Afrikaner-enclave town known as Orania. The Solidarity Movement itself have announced plans to go to Europe in 2025 to undertake more lobbying there.

Three Americans convicted for their role in a failed coup in Democratic Republic of Congo last year have had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment, the presidency has said.

They were among 37 people sentenced to death last September by a military court.

athe three were accused of leading an attack on both the presidential palace and the home of an ally of President Félix Tshisekedi last May.

The overturning of the sentences comes ahead of a visit to DR Congo by the newly appointed US senior adviser for Africa, Massad Boulos.

Organisers say 150,000 joined protest in Madrid urging the government to ‘end the housing racket’ and to demand access to affordable housing

A US neo-Nazi terrorist group with a Russia-based leader is calling for targeted assassinations and attacks on the critical infrastructure of Ukraine in an effort to destabilize the country as it carries out ceasefire negotiations with the Kremlin.

The Base, which has a web of cells all over the world, was founded in 2018 and became the subject of a relentless FBI counter-terrorism investigation that led to several arrests and world governments officially designating it as a terrorist organization.

Now, with the Trump administration pulling the FBI from pursuing the far right, the Base, left unchecked, is trying to export its violence abroad.

This is the first time the Base has openly allied itself with the Kremlin’s broader geopolitical goals, a sudden change experts say signals its likely involvement in Russian sabotage and propaganda operations now being carried out across Europe.

The Base founder and leader, Rinaldo Nazzaro, a semi-defected American who worked with US special forces during the war on terror and now lives in Saint Petersburg, has for years garnered suspicions of being a Russian intelligence asset. Even members of the Base mused that he was a spy and grew weary of the source of his cash flow.

In posts on Telegram, the Base is offering cash for volunteer operatives and recruits to carry out attacks on, “electric power stations, military & police vehicles, military & police personnel, government buildings, [Ukrainian] politicians”, specifically in Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine.

The plan was unveiled online last week and is in support of a wider bid to carve out a white nationalist enclave in the Zakarpattia region of Ukraine, something the Base describes as having “rugged mountainous terrain which is a force multiplier for an unconventional paramilitary force”.

The Base’s Ukrainian ambitions fall in line with a major Kremlin talking point since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine: casting aspersions on the government of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, himself a Jewish man, as a sort of new Third Reich. While Russia has long sought to portray Ukraine as a bastion for the far right – even though it harbors Nazzaro, uses a neo-Nazi militia alongside its military and makes alliances with European fascists.

How real the Base’s actual presence in Ukraine currently is, remains unclear and is unlikely to be significant. In 2019, Ukrainian security services deported one of the Base’s members for his neo-Nazi activities and trying to enlist in their military. Though they have tried and failed, it is rare for stateside far-right groups to export any real influence into Ukraine.

This isn’t the first time the Base, which has made recent strides in rebuilding its American membership, started appearing in Europe. Last year, members were arrested in Belgium, the Netherlands, and in Italy where authorities cracked down on a Base cell that it said had ties to a network of Russian far-right terrorists recruiting from Telegram.

President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are convincing Austria to ditch its long-time opposition to a trade deal between the European Union and the Mercosur bloc.

Economy Minister Wolfgang Hattmannsdorfer is now urging the European Commission to prepare a final agreement and ratification process for the free-trade deal signed in December, which seeks to create an integrated market of 780 million consumers in Europe and Latin America.

The shift means there’s one fewer European nation opposing the pact that followed 20 years of negotiations. Some European countries, including France and Poland, have said they won’t accept the agreement due to its potential impact on farmers, raising questions over its implementation.

It also shows how Trump’s onslaught on the global economic order is pushing nations to adapt on the fly, including by forging new trade alliances and seeking markets for export goods that may no longer reach the US.

EU trade ministers are due to meet on Monday to discuss the US measures. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promised a firm and proportionate response, but has also indicated that the EU would prefer to avoid a confrontation and instead find a negotiated solution in the coming weeks.

Hattmannsdorfer’s comments are all the more remarkable as they come from a minister appointed by the conservative People’s Party, which is deeply rooted in rural Austria and has been wary of damaging farmers, against the backdrop of surging popularity for the far-right Freedom Party.

Mercosur, the regional economic market established in 1991, has five full members - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela’s full membership has been suspended since 2016. Seven other countries in South and Central America are associate members.

They came out in defense of national parks and small businesses, public education and health care for veterans, abortion rights and fair elections. They marched against tariffs and oligarchs, dark money and fascism, the deportation of legal immigrants and the Department of Government Efficiency.

Demonstrators had no shortage of causes as they gathered in towns and cities across the country on Saturday to protest President Trump’s agenda. Rallies were planned in all 50 states, and images posted on social media showed crowds in places like St. Augustine, Fla., and Franklin, N.C., and rainy Frankfort, Ky.

While crowd sizes are difficult to estimate, organizers said that more than 600,000 people had signed up to participate. On Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, the protest stretched for nearly 20 blocks. In Chicago, several thousand people flooded Daley Plaza and adjacent streets, while in the nation’s capital tens of thousands surrounded the Washington Monument. In Atlanta, the police estimated the crowd marching to the gold-domed statehouse at over 20,000.

Some demonstrators waved American flags, occasionally turned upside down to signal distress. Many, especially federal workers and college students, were afraid to speak on the record for fear of retaliation.

The mass action, “Hands Off!,” was planned at a time when many have bemoaned what they see as a lack of strong resistance to Mr. Trump. The president has moved aggressively to punish people and institutions he views as out of step with his ideology.

The rallies were organized by Indivisible, MoveOn and several other groups that led protests about abortion rights, gun violence and racial justice during the first Trump administration. Organizers said they hoped to shift the emphasis to pocketbook issues like health care and Social Security, with the message that Mr. Trump is making life harder for the average American while benefiting his richest friends.

They also moved away from focusing on massive demonstrations, like the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, to instead plan hundreds of local gatherings in communities large and small.