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.
The Trump administration paused its plan to garnish Social Security benefits for those who have defaulted on their student loans — but says borrowers’ paychecks are still at risk.
“Wage garnishment will begin later this summer,” Ellen Keast, a U.S. Department of Education spokesperson, told CNBC.
Since the Covid pandemic began in March 2020,collection activity on federal student loans had mostly been on hold. The Biden administration focused on extending relief measures to struggling borrowers in the wake of the public health crisis and helping them to get current.
The Trump administration’s move to resume collection efforts and garnish wages of those behind on their student loans is a sharp turn away from that strategy. Officials have said that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook when people don’t repay their education debt.
“Borrowers should pay back the debts they take on,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a video posted on X on April 22.
Here’s what borrowers need to know about the Education Department’s current collection plans.
Social Security benefits are safe, for now
Keast said on Monday that the administration was delaying its plan to offset Social Security benefits for borrowers with a defaulted student loan.
Some older borrowers who were bracing for a reduced benefit check as early as Tuesday.
The Education Department previously said Social Security benefits could be garnished starting in June. Depending on details like their birth date and when they began receiving benefits, a recipient’s monthly Social Security check may arrive June 3, 11, 18 or 25 this year, according to the Social Security Administration.
More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“The Trump Administration is committed to protecting Social Security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income,” said Keast.
Wages are still at risk
The Education Dept. says defaulted student loan borrowers could see their wages garnished later this summer.
The agency can garnish up to 15% of your disposable, or after-tax, pay, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. By law, you must be left with at least 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage ($7.25) a week, which is $217.50, Kantrowitz said.
Borrowers in default will receive a 30-day notice before their wages are garnished, a spokesperson for the Education Department previously told CNBC.
During that period, you should have the option to have a hearing before an administrative law judge, Kantrowitz said. The Education Department notice is supposed to include information on how you request that, he said.
Your wages may be protected if you’ve recently been unemployed, or if you’ve recently filed for bankruptcy, Kantrowitz said.
Borrowers can also challenge the wage garnishment if it will result in financial hardship, he added.
The U.S. Department of Education is seen on March 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order to abolish the Department of Education.
Win Mcnamee | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The U.S. Department of Education is pausing its plan to garnish people’s Social Security benefits if they have defaulted on their student loans, a spokesperson for the agency tells CNBC.
“The Trump Administration is committed to protecting Social Security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income,” said Ellen Keast, an Education Department spokesperson.
The development is an abrupt change in policy by the administration.
The Trump administration announced on April 21 that it would resume collection activity on the country’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio. For nearly half a decade, the government did not go after those who’d fallen behind as part of Covid-era policies.
The federal government has extraordinary collection powers on its student loans and it can seize borrowers’ tax refunds, paychecks and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Social Security recipients can see their checks reduced by up to 15% to pay back their defaulted student loan.
More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
The massive package of tax cuts House Republicans passed in May is expected to increase the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars — a sum that threatens to torpedo the legislation as the Senate starts to consider it this week.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill, as written, would add about $3.1 trillion to the national debt over a decade with interest, to a total $53 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates a higher tally: $3.8 trillion, including interest and economic effects.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of two Republicans to vote against the House measure, calling it a “debt bomb ticking” and noting that it “dramatically increases deficits in the near term.”
“Congress can do funny math — fantasy math — if it wants,” Massie said on the House floor on May 22. “But bond investors don’t.”
A handful of Republican Senators have also voiced concern about the bill’s potential addition to the U.S. debt load and other aspects of the legislation.
“The math doesn’t really add up,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on CBS.
The legislation comes as interest payments on U.S. debt have surpassed national spending on defense and represent the second-largest outlay behind Social Security. Federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure of U.S. economic output, is already at an all-time high.
The notion of rising national debt may seem unimportant for the average person, but it can have a significant impact on household finances, economists said.
“I don’t think most consumers think about it at all,” said Tim Quinlan, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “They think, ‘It doesn’t really impact me.’ But I think the truth is, it absolutely does.”
Consumer loans would be ‘a lot more’ expensive
A much higher U.S. debt burden would likely cause consumers to “pay a lot more” to finance homes, cars and other common purchases, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.
“That’s the key link back to us as consumers, businesspeople and investors: The prospect that all this borrowing, the rising debt load, mean higher interest rates,” he said.
The House legislation cuts taxes for households by about $4 trillion, most of which accrue for the wealthy. The bill offsets some of those tax cuts by slashing spending for safety-net programs like Medicaid and food assistance for lower earners.
Some Republicans and White House officials argue President Trump’s tariff policies would offset a big chunk of the tax cuts.
But economists say tariffs are an unreliable revenue generator — because a future president can undo them, and courts may take them off the books.
How rising debt impacts Treasury yields
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Ultimately, higher interest rates for consumers ties to perceptions of U.S. debt loads and their effect on U.S. Treasury bonds.
Common forms of consumer borrowing like mortgages and auto loans are priced based on yields for U.S. Treasury bonds, particularly the 10-year Treasury.
Yields (i.e., interest rates) for long-term Treasury bonds are largely dictated by market forces. They rise and fall based on supply and demand from investors.
The U.S. relies on Treasury bonds to fund its operations. The government must borrow, since it doesn’t take in enough annual tax revenue to pay its bills, what’s known as an annual “budget deficit.” It pays back Treasury investors with interest.
If the Republican bill — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — were to raise the U.S. debt and deficit by trillions of dollars, it would likely spook investors and Treasury demand may fall, economists said.
Investors would likely demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the additional risk that the U.S. government may not pay its debt obligations in a timely way down the road, economists said.
Interest rates priced to the 10-year Treasury “also have to go up because of the higher risk being taken,” said Philip Chao, chief investment officer and certified financial planner at Experiential Wealth based in Cabin John, Maryland.
Moody’s cut the U.S.’ sovereign credit rating in May, citing the increasing burden of the federal budget deficit and signaling a bigger credit risk for investors. Bond yields spiked on the news.
How debt may impact consumer borrowing
Zandi cited a general rule of thumb to illustrate what a higher debt burden could mean for consumers: The 10-year Treasury yield rises about 0.02 percentage points for each 1-point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, he said.
For example, if the ratio were to rise from 100% (roughly where it is now) to 130%, the 10-year Treasury yield would increase about 0.6 percentage points, Zandi said. That would push the yield to more than 5% relative to current levels of around 4.5%, he said.
“It’s a big deal,” Zandi said.
A fixed 30-year mortgage would rise from almost 7% to roughly 7.6%, all else equal — likely putting homeownership further “out of reach,” especially for many potential first-time buyers, he said.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell from about 101% at the end of 2025 to an estimated 148% through 2034 under the as-written House legislation, said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director for the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
Bond investors get hit, too
It’s not just consumer borrowers: Certain investors would also stand to lose, experts said.
When Treasury yields rise, prices fall for current bondholders. Their current Treasury bonds become less valuable, weighing on investment portfolios.
“If the market interest rate has gone up, your bond has depreciated,” Chao said. “Your net worth has gone down.”
The market for long-term Treasury bonds has been more volatile amid investor jitters, leading some experts to recommend shorter-term bonds.
On the flip side, those buying new bonds may be happy because they can earn a higher rate, he said.
‘Pouring gasoline on the fire’
The cost of consumer financing has already roughly doubled in recent years, said Quinlan of Wells Fargo.
The average 10-year Treasury yield was about 2.1% from 2012 to 2022; it has been about 4.1% from 2023 to the present, he said.
Of course, the U.S. debt burden is just one of many things that influence Treasury investors and yields, Quinlan said. For example, Treasury investors sent yields sharply higher as they rushed for the exits after Trump announced a spate of country-specific tariffs in April, as they questioned the safe-haven status of U.S. assets.
“But it’s not going out on too much of a limb to suggest financial markets the last couple years have grown increasingly concerned about debt levels,” Quinlan said.
Absent action, the U.S. debt burden would still rise, economists said. The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell to 138% even if Republicans don’t pass any legislation, Smetters said.
But the House legislation would be “pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Chao.
“It’s adding to the problems we already have,” Chao said. “And this is why the bond market is not happy with it,” he added.