As child labor violations soar across the country, dozens of states are ramping up efforts to update child labor laws — with widespread efforts to weaken laws, but some to bolster them as well.
Labor experts attribute the spike in child labor violations — which, a Post analysis shows, have tripled in 10 years — to a tight labor market that has prompted employers to hire more teens, as well as migrant children arriving from Latin America. In 2023, teens ages 16 to 19 were working or looking for work at the highest annual rate since 2009, according to Labor Department data.
That has led to the largest effort in years to change the patchwork of state laws that regulate child labor, with major implications for the country’s youths and the labor market. At least 16 states have one or more bills that would weaken their child labor laws and at least 13 are seeking to strengthen them, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute and other sources. Among these states, there are 43 bill proposals.
Since 2022, 14 states have passed or enacted new child labor laws.
Federal law forbids all minors from working in jobs deemed hazardous, including those in manufacturing, roofing, meatpacking and demolition. Fourteen- and 15-year-olds are not allowed to work past 7 p.m. on school nights or 9 p.m. on weekends.
Most states have laws that are tougher than federal rules, although an effort is underway, led by Republican lawmakers, to undo those restrictions, which is supported by restaurant associations, liquor associations and home builders associations.
A Florida-based lobbying group, the Foundation for Government Accountability, which has fought to promote conservative interests such as restricting access to anti-poverty programs, drafted or lobbied for recent bills to strip child labor protections in at least six states.
Among them is Indiana’s new law enacted in March, repealing all work-hour restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds, who previously couldn’t work past 10 p.m. or before 6 a.m. on school days. The law also extends legal work hours for 14- and 15-year-olds.
Indiana legislators sparred over the bill, with state Sen. Mike Gaskill (R) saying at a hearing in March, “Do not for a second think that this is about the evil employers trying to manipulate and take advantage of kids.” But state Sen. Andrea Hunley (D) called the bill an “irresponsible and dystopian” way of “responding to our workforce shortage.”
In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law changes that allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work seven days in a row. It also removes all hour restrictions for teens in online school or home-school, effectively permitting them to work overnight shifts.
Some states have reported soaring numbers of child-labor violations over the past year, with investigators uncovering violations in fast-food restaurants, but also in dangerous jobs in meatpacking, manufacturing and construction, where federal law prohibits minors from working. The Labor Department alleged in a lawsuit in February that a sanitation company,Fayette Janitorial Service, employed children as young as 13 to clean head splitters and other kill-floor equipment at slaughterhouses on overnight shifts in Virginia and Iowa.
Despite such findings, an Iowa law signed last year by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) allows minors in that state to work in jobs previously deemed too hazardous, including in industrial laundries, light manufacturing, demolition, roofing and excavation, but not slaughterhouses. Separately, West Virginia enacted a law this month that allows 16- and 17-year-olds to work some roofing jobs as part of an apprenticeship program.
Six more states are evaluating bills to lift restrictions preventing minors from working jobs considered dangerous. A Georgia bill would allow 14-year-olds to work in landscaping on factory grounds and other prohibited work sites. Florida’s legislature has passed a law, drafted by the state’s construction industry association, that would allow teens to work certain jobs in residential construction. It is awaiting approval from DeSantis.
Carol Bowen, chief lobbyist for the Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida, testified in February that the state “has one of the largest skilled-work shortages in recent history” and that the construction industry needs to identify the “next generation.”
Bowen said the bill limits work for 16- and 17-year-olds to home construction projects, adding that teens wouldn’t be able to work on anything higher than six feet.
In Kentucky, the House has passed a bill that prevents the state from having child labor laws that are stricter than federal protections, in effect removing all limitations on when 16- and 17-year-olds can work.
Meanwhile, Alabama, West Virginia, Missouri and Georgia are considering bills this year that would eliminate work permit requirements for minors, verifying age or parental or school permission to work. Most states require these permits. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed a similar bill into law last year.
Republican lawmakers often say they are trying to increase opportunities or bring requirements in line with federal standards when they push to loosen child labor laws. They say that lowering restrictions helps employers fill labor shortages, while improving teenagers’ work ethic and reducing their screen time. Another common refrain is that permitting later work hours allows high school students opportunities similar to those for varsity athletes whose games often go later than state law allows teens to work.
“These are youth workers that are driving automobiles. They are not children,” said state Rep. Linda Chaney (R), sponsor of the Florida bill expanding work hours for 16- and 17-year-olds, during a hearing in December.
Indiana state Sen. Andy Zay (R), who supported the state’s new law extending work hours for 14- and 15-year-olds, told The Washington Post that as a father of five children, including a son who plays high school basketball, he felt saddened by criticism that teens could be exploited into working later hours under this law.
“I don’t see that, and I don’t feel that. And certainly they would have the freedom to move on,” Zay said.
But the spike in child labor violations and the recentdeaths of minors illegally employed in dangerous jobs have also prompted a push by labor advocates to strengthen state laws.
The Virginia legislature unanimously approved a bill in recent weeks that would increase employer penalties for child labor violations from $1,000 to $2,500 for routine violations. Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) approved the measure Wednesday.
The bill’s sponsor, Del. Holly M. Seibold (D-Fairfax), told The Post that she was “shocked and horrified” to read recently about poultry plants in Virginia illegally employing migrant children and wrote legislation to raise the penalties.
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Nebraska and Colorado also are pushing to raise employer penalties for child labor violations, with lawmakers calling them outdated and not substantial enough to deter employers from breaking the law. For example, Iowa fines employers $2,500 for a serious but nonfatal injury of a minor illegally working in a hazardous industry and $500 if there is no serious injury. The new bill proposes an additional $5,000 penalty for an injury that leads to a workers’ compensation case.
Terri Gerstein, director of the Wagner Labor Initiative at New York University, said that the focus on increasing penalties is “good, but, alone, is not good enough,” given that many states have very minimal resources dedicated to enforcing laws.
This year, Colorado legislators have introduced the strongest package to crack down on employers that break child labor laws. The legislation would raise fines for violations and deposit them into a fund for enforcement. Lawmakers are also seeking to make information on companies that violate child labor laws publicly available; in many states, such information is off-limits to the public. Coloradowould also legally protect parents of minors who are employed illegally, as some have faced criminal charges for child abuse.
Colorado state Rep. Sheila Lieder (D), who introduced the bill, told The Post that Colorado’s child labor laws aren’t punitive enough to dissuade employers from violating the laws, with just a $20 penalty per offense.
“The fine in Colorado is like a couple cups of coffee at a brand-name coffee store,” Lieder said. “I was just, like, there’s something more that has to be done.”
Jacqueline Aguilar, a 21-year-old college student in Alamosa, Colo., who supports the bill, worked in the lettuce and potato fields on Colorado’s Eastern Plains from the time she was 13, alongside her immigrant parents, to buy school clothes.
“Laws have to be stricter because a lot of people don’t report” violations, said Aguilar, who worked 12-hour shifts in the fields starting at 4:30 a.m. growing up. She said she had no knowledge of her labor rights at the time. “Once I started getting older and my mom became disabled because of the job, it changed my perspective on children working.”
correction
In Kentucky, the House-passed bill that prevents the state from enacting child labor laws stricter than federal protections but does not also repeal requirements for meal and rest breaks for minors. A previous version said that the bill would repeal breaks for minors.
Funded under the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, the program has been heavily scrutinized by Republicans, who have criticized the cost and participation rate. Over the past year, Republican lawmakers from both chambers have introduced legislation to halt the IRS’ free filing program.
Now, some reports say Direct File could be at risk. Meanwhile, no decision has been made yet about the program’s future, according to a White House administration official.
During his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent committed to keeping Direct File active during the 2025 filing season without commenting on future years.
“I will consult and study the program and understand it better and make sure it works to serve the IRS’ three goals of collections, customer service and privacy,” Bessent told the Senate Finance Committee at the hearing.
However, the future of the free tax filing program remains unclear.
As of April 17, the Direct File website said the program would be open until Oct. 15, which is the deadline for taxpayers who filed for a federal tax extension.
Many taxpayers can also file for free via another program known as IRS Free File, which is a public-private partnership between the IRS and the Free File Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of tax software companies.
Direct File supporters on Wednesday blasted the possible decision to end the program.
“No one should have to pay huge fees just to file their taxes,” Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a statement on Wednesday.
Wyden described the program as “a massive success, saving taxpayers millions in fees, saving them time and cutting out an unnecessary middleman.”
In January, more than 130 Democrats, led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Chris Coons, D-Del., voiced support for Direct File.
However, opponents have criticized the program’s participation rate and cost.
During the 2024 pilot, some 423,450 taxpayers created or signed in to a Direct File account. Roughly one-third of those taxpayers, about 141,000 filers, submitted a return through Direct File, according to a March report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
Those figures represent a mid-season 2024 launch in 12 states for only simple returns. It’s unclear how many taxpayers used Direct File through the April 15 deadline.
The cost for Direct File through the pilot was $24.6 million, the IRS reported in May 2024. Direct File operational costs were an extra $2.4 million, according to the agency.
Some investors accustomed to the dominance of U.S. stocks versus the rest of the world are making a stunning pivot toward international equities, fearing U.S. assets may have taken on more risk amid escalating trade tensions initiated by President Donald Trump.
The S&P 500 sank more than 6% since Trump first announced his tariff plan, while the Dow and Nasdaq have each tumbled more than 7%.
There was a strong argument to dial back U.S. stock holdings and adopt a more global portfolio even before the recent volatility, said Christine Benz, director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar.
“But I think the case for international diversification is even greater 1744909145, given recent developments,” she said.
Jacob Manoukian, head of U.S. investment strategy at J.P. Morgan Private Bank, offered a similar assessment. “Global diversification seems like a prudent strategy,” he wrote in a research note on Monday.
U.S. had the world beat by ‘sizable margin’
Some experts, however, don’t think investors should be so quick to dump U.S. stocks and chase returns abroad.
The United States is still “a quality market that looks like a bargain,” said Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute.
U.S. stocks had been outperforming the world for years heading into 2025.
The S&P 500 index had an average annual return of 11.9% from mid-2008 through 2024, beating returns of developed countries by a “sizable margin,” according to analysts at J.P. Morgan Private Bank.
The MSCI EAFE index — which tracks stock returns in developed markets outside of the U.S. and Canada — was up 3.6% per year over the same period, on average, they wrote.
However, the story is different this year, experts say.
“In a surprising twist, the U.S. equity market has just offered investors a timely reminder about why diversification matters,” the analysts at J.P. Morgan Private Bank wrote. “Although U.S. outperformance has been a familiar feature of global equity markets since mid-2008, change is possible.”
The Trump administration’s tariff policy and an escalating trade war with China have raised concerns about the growth of the U.S. economy.
U.S. markets have been under pressure ever since the White House first announced country-specific tariffs on April 2. Trump imposed tariffs on many nations, including a 145% levy on imports from China.
As of Thursday morning, the S&P 500 was down roughly 10% year-to-date, while the Nasdaq Composite has pulled back more than 16% in 2025. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had lost nearly 8%. Alternatively, the EAFE was up about 7%.
Is U.S. exceptionalism dead?
The sharp sell-off in U.S. markets has raised doubts as to whether U.S. assets “are as attractive to foreigners now as they once were and, perhaps as a consequence, whether ‘U.S. [equity] market exceptionalism’ could be on the way out,” market analysts at Capital Economics wrote Thursday.
At the same time, rising global trade tensions have taken a toll on the bond market, threatening to shake the confidence of holders of U.S. debt. The U.S. dollar has also weakened, nearing a one-year low as of Thursday morning.
It’s unusual for U.S. stocks, bonds and the dollar to fall at the same time, analysts said.
Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Monday that President Donald Trump’s tariffs have made it more difficult for Americans to find comfort in the U.S. financial system.
“This is really creating an environment in which households and businesses feel paralyzed by the uncertainty about what’s going to happen,” Yellen told CNBC during a “Squawk Box” interview. “It makes planning almost impossible.”
The U.S. fire had ‘already been burning’
A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the opening bell in New York City, on April 17, 2025.
Timothy A. Clary | AFP | Getty Images
That said, international and U.S. stock returns tend to ebb and flow in cycles, with each showing multi-year periods of relative strength and weakness.
Since 1975, U.S. stock returns have outperformed those of international stocks for stretches of about eight years, on average, according to an analysis by Hartford Funds through 2024. Then, U.S. stocks cede the mantle to international stocks, it said.
Based on history, non-U.S. equities are overdue to reclaim the top spot: The U.S. is currently 13.8 years into the current cycle of stock outperformance, according to the Hartford Funds analysis.
U.S. markets had already showed weakness heading into the year amid concerns about the health of the economy grew and as “air came out the valuations of ‘big-tech’ stocks,” according to Capital Economics analysts.
“In that respect, ‘Liberation Day’ — which accentuated these moves — only added fuel to a fire that had already been burning,” they wrote.
Advisors: ‘Tread carefully here’
A good starting point for investors would be to mirror a global stock fund like the Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF (VT), said Benz of Morningstar. That fund holds about 63% of assets in U.S. stocks and 37% in non-U.S. stocks.
It may make sense to pare back exposure to international stocks as individual investors approach retirement, she said, to reduce the volatility that comes from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.
“Part of our core models for clients have always had international exposure, it’s traditionally part of any risk-adjusted portfolio,”said certified financial planner Douglas Boneparth, president of Bone Fide Wealth in New York, of the conversations he is having with his clients.
Financial advisor or business people meeting discussing financial figures. They are discussing finance charts and graphs on a laptop computer. Rear view of sitting in an office and are discussing performance
Courtneyk | E+ | Getty Images
Even though those asset classes didn’t perform as well over the last few years, “they’ve done a pretty good job here of helping reduce the brunt of this tariff volatility,” said Boneparth, a member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.
Still, Boneparth cautions investors against making any sudden moves to add non-U.S. equities to their portfolios.
“If you are thinking about making changes now, be careful,” he said. “Do you lock in losses to U.S. stocks to gain international exposure? You want to tread carefully here,” he said. “Are you chasing or timing? You usually don’t want to do those things.”
However, this may be a good time to check your investments to make sure you are still allocated properly and rebalance as needed, he added. “By rebalancing, you can rotate out of less risky assets into equities, strategically buying the dip.”
There have been very few times in history when clients asked about increasing their investments overseas, “which is happening now,” said CFP Barry Glassman, the founder and president of Glassman Wealth Services.
“Given that both stocks and currency are outperforming U.S. indices it’s no wonder there is greater interest in foreign stocks today,” said Glassman, who is also a member of the CNBC Advisor Council.
“Even in the past, when U.S. stocks have fallen, the dollar’s gains helped to offset a portion of the losses. In the past two weeks, that has not been the case,” he said.
Glassman said he maintains a two-thirds to one-third ratio of U.S. stocks to foreign stock funds in the portfolios he manages.
“We are not making any moves now,” he said. “The moves for us were made over time to maintain what we consider the appropriate foreign allocation.”
Retirees may think moving all their investments to cash and bonds — and out of stocks — protects their nest egg from risk.
They would be wrong, experts say.
Most, if not all, retirees need stocks — the growth engine of an investment portfolio — to ensure they don’t run out of money during a retirement that might last decades, experts said.
“It’s important for retirees to have some equities in their portfolio to increase the long-term returns,” said David Blanchett, head of retirement research for PGIM, an investment management arm of Prudential Financial.
Longevity is biggest financial risk
Longevity risk — the risk of outliving one’s savings — is the biggest financial danger for retirees, Blanchett said.
The average life span has increased from about 68 years in 1950 to to 78.4 in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What’s more, the number of 100-year-olds in the U.S. is expected to quadruple over the next three decades, according to Pew Research Center.
Retirees may feel that shifting out of stocks — especially during bouts of volatility like the recent tariff-induced selloff — insulates their portfolio from risk.
They would be correct in one sense: cash and bonds are generally less volatile than stocks and therefore buffer retirees from short-term gyrations in the stock market.
Indeed, finance experts recommend dialing back stock exposure over time and boosting allocations to bonds and cash. The thinking is that investors don’t want to subject a huge chunk of their portfolio to steep losses if they need to access those funds in the short term.
Dialing back too much from stocks, however, poses a risk, too, experts said.
Retirees who pare their stock exposure back too much may have a harder time keeping up with inflation and they raise the risk of outliving their savings, Blanchett said.
Stocks have had a historical return of about 10% per year, outperforming bonds by about five percentage points, Blanchett said. Of course, this means that over the long term, investing in stocks has yielded higher returns compared to investing in bonds.
“Retirement can last up to three decades or more, meaning your portfolio will still need to grow in order to support you,” wrote Judith Ward and Roger Young, certified financial planners at T. Rowe Price, an asset manager.
What’s a good stock allocation for retirees?
So, what’s a good number?
One rule of thumb is for investors to subtract their age from 110 or 120 to determine the percentage of their portfolio they should allocate to stocks, Blanchett said.
For example, a roughly 50/50 allocation to stocks and bonds would be a reasonable starting point for the typical 65-year-old, he said.
An investor in their 60s might hold 45% to 65% of their portfolio in stocks; 30% to 50% in bonds; and 0% to 10% in cash, Ward and Young of T. Rowe Price wrote.
Someone in their 70s and older might have 30% to 50% in stocks; 40% to 60% in bonds; and 0% to 20% in cash, they said.
Why your stock allocation may differ
However, every investor is different, Blanchett said. They have different abilities to take risk, he said.
For example, investors who’ve saved too much money, or can fund their lifestyles with guaranteed income like pensions and Social Security — can choose to take less risk with their investment portfolios because they don’t need the long-term investment growth, Blanchett said.
The less important consideration for investors is risk “appetite,” he said.
This is essentially their stomach for risk. A retiree who knows they’ll panic in a downturn should probably not have more than 50% to 60% in stocks, Blanchett said.
The more comfortable with volatility and the better-funded a retiree is, the more aggressive they can be, Blanchett said.
Other key considerations
There are a few other important considerations for retirees, experts said.
Diversification. Investing in “stocks” doesn’t mean putting all of one’s money in an individual stock like Nvidia or a few technology stocks, Blanchett said. Instead, investors would be well-suited by putting their money in a total market index fund that tracks the broad stock market, he said.
Bucketing. Retirees can do lasting damage to the longevity of their portfolio if they pull money from stocks that are declining in value, experts said. This risk is especially high in the first few years of retirement. It’s important for retirees to have separate buckets of bonds and cash they can pull from to get them through that time period as stocks recover.