New Center for American Progress analysis finds that since 2025, when the second Trump administration took office, workers and unions who file charges of unfair labor practices against employers are much more likely to see them dismissed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) compared with 2024. At the same time, several labor lawyers report charges are being dismissed due to procedural changes.
Workers depend on the NLRB to remedy allegations of unfair labor practices, such as threatening or firing workers who discuss workplace matters with their co-workers or try to organize a union. When someone makes an unfair labor practice allegation, staff at NLRB regional offices investigate their claims to determine whether the charges have merit. According to the new CAP analysis, however, from January 1, 2025, to April 29, 2026, the likelihood that the NLRB dismissed a charge filed by a union alleging that an employer committed an unfair labor practice was 14.2 percentage points higher than in 2024. Workers that filed unfair labor practice charges against their employers were 10.7 percentage points more likely to see their charges dismissed. By contrast, charges filed by workers against unions were only 0.5 percentage points less likely to get dismissed, and those filed by employers against unions were 3.5 percentage points more likely to get dismissed. These results exclude cases withdrawn by the charging party, since the data do not indicate whether they were withdrawn because the NLRB intended to dismiss the charges or for other reasons. Yet the pattern holds true whether or not withdrawn charges are included. (see Appendix for more)
The NLRB general counsel appointed by Trump, Crystal Carey, claims that the NLRB is protecting workers’ rights by resolving cases more “promptly.” In reality, new charges filed against employers are simply far more likely to be dismissed. The Trump administration has pursued anti-union policies since taking office, attempting to end collective bargaining for more than 1 million federal workers and attacking the NLRB by firing pro-worker leaders, reversing agency policies that strengthened organizing rights, and leaving the decisional board without a quorum for 345 days in 2025. Now, it is letting staffing levels deteriorate at the NLRB regional offices where allegations of unfair labor practices are investigated and changing its procedures to make it easier for charges to be dismissed. A 2019 report found that employers are charged with violating labor law in 41.5 percent of union election campaigns, meaning fair enforcement of labor law at the NLRB is a necessity for ensuring workers can exercise their right to organize. The deck is already stacked against workers, and the Trump administration has erected additional barriers to private sector union organizing through its attacks on the NLRB.
The NLRB is dismissing more charges alleging employers have engaged in unfair labor practices
CAP’s analysis compares the likelihood that the NLRB dismissed an unfair labor practice charge in the period from January 1, 2025, to April 29, 2026, to the likelihood throughout all of 2024. The likelihood that the NLRB dismissed charges alleging that an employer committed an unfair labor practice went up, while the likelihood it dismissed charges alleging that unions committed an unfair labor practice barely changed.
When an employer interferes with a worker’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), such as by threatening to close a location if workers form a union, promising special benefits for workers who vote against a union, or firing workers for organizing activity, they commit an unfair labor practice. If a worker, union, or employer believes an unfair labor practice may have occurred, they can file their allegation with the NLRB, which is responsible for overseeing nearly all private sector organizing activity outside of the airline and railroad industries. Once an allegation is made, NLRB staff at a regional office investigate it to determine whether it has merit. If it is found to have merit, the regional office should issue a complaint. The complaint is the basis of formal proceedings in the case and can potentially result in an order from the NLRB that decides the case, which may require enforcement through the courts. If the NLRB staff at the regional office choose not to issue a complaint, the NLRB first gives the party that filed the charge the opportunity to withdraw it on their own and, if they choose not to withdraw, the NLRB regional director then dismisses the charge. The NLRB may be soliciting more withdrawals of charges that it previously would have found meritorious, but the public data do not list reasons for withdrawals, so such a pattern cannot be measured directly. Charges can also be withdrawn because the filing party no longer wishes to pursue them or because they were resolved through other means such as settlement out of court. The NLRB recently issued guidance emphasizing case resolution through settlements instead of litigation, even at the expense of enhanced remedies for workers, though some worker advocates have expressed concern that these settlements favor not workers but businesses that break the law under the NLRA.
As shown in Figure 1, from January 1, 2025, to April 29, 2026, the NLRB dismissed 34.7 percent of unfair labor practice charges filed by unions, an increase of 14.2 percentage points compared with 2024. The NLRB dismissed 67.4 percent of charges filed by workers that allege employers committed unfair labor practices, which is 10.7 percentage points higher than in 2024. By comparison, the NLRB was 0.5 percentage points less likely to dismiss a case filed by a worker alleging that a union committed an unfair labor practice, dismissing 82 percent of these charges—a rate virtually unchanged since 2024. Workers are typically much more likely to see their charges dismissed, sometimes due to charges being filed regarding issues over which the NLRB does not have jurisdiction. Employers, meanwhile, saw 35.6 percent of their charges dismissed in 2025 and 2026, an increase of just 3.5 percentage points since 2024.
This analysis measures the proportion of charges that were dismissed without changes to the underlying particulars of the case. Since the NLRB solicits withdrawals of charges that it believes lack merit before dismissing them, the NLRB may be soliciting more withdrawals of charges it previously would have found meritorious. Such a trend is impossible to measure directly with the data used in this analysis, as the data do not indicate whether the party withdrew their charges because they no longer wished to pursue them or because the NLRB would otherwise have dismissed them. As a result of this limitation, withdrawals were excluded from the data used in this analysis. Yet even when examining results inclusive of both dismissals and withdrawals, the author found a similar pattern: Under the Trump administration, more cases are being withdrawn or dismissed that allege unfair labor practices by employers. For those results and more methodological details, see the Appendix.
The NLRB’s procedural changes make it easier for unfair labor practice charges to be dismissed
The NLRB has long faced difficulties maintaining enough staff to meet its caseload, but these challenges came to a head after the second Trump administration assumed office and more than 10 percent of NLRB staff left the agency throughout 2025. For years, the NLRB has received very few increases in its budget, leading to chronic staffing shortages, especially at the regional offices that investigate allegations of unfair labor practices. In 2025, rather than try to hire enough employees to meet the 23 percent staffing shortfall in its field offices, the agency only hired eight new workers while more than 150 departed. As a result, investigations slowed and a backlog of open cases built up.
The NLRB also made changes to its case-handling procedures in December 2025 to try to “improve efficiency and reduce delays,” according to a press release it issued in response to “a general misunderstanding” of its changes. These new intake protocols make it easier for charges to be dismissed because they require a charging party to submit supporting documents within two weeks of the charge being filed, and if sufficient documentation is not provided, the NLRB issues a dismissal letter within just a week or two of the deadline. An internal memo on the protocols also notes that statutory priority charges do not go through this system; instead, they are assigned directly to board agents. Moreover, most types of priority charges can only be filed against unions. Recently, some lawyers have said that these changes are responsible for their charges being dismissed. New guidance issued in February 2026 reaffirmed that the NLRB would preserve its procedural changes and emphasized the use of settlements to resolve cases.
The Trump administration has consistently attacked the NLRB’s ability to fulfill its mission of overseeing most private sector union organizing. Despite his promises on the campaign trail to “be a champion for the American worker,” President Donald Trump replaced NLRB leadership with former management-side lawyers—and shortly after taking office in January, fired one of the NLRB’s members. This effectively shut down the operations of its five-member decisional board for almost a year by leaving it without a quorum. Cases about illegal firings of union organizers and other unfair labor practices were stalled because decisions made by administrative law judges could not be automatically adopted by the NLRB’s executive secretary; they instead could be appealed and sent to the five-member decisional board, where they sat in limbo until a quorum was once again reached to receive a final decision. In 2025, under this lack of a quorum, the total number of NLRB-overseen union elections fell by 30 percent, and though workers are still organizing, anti-union moves from the administration place additional obstacles in the way of workers trying to organize.
Conclusion
Workers should be concerned that the NLRB is dismissing more allegations of unfair labor practices against employers. Fair enforcement of labor law prevents employers from breaking labor laws without facing consequences and ensures that workers have a decent chance of being able to organize and join a union, with all the related benefits for their families’ wealth and financial security. However, despite President Trump’s promises to help working families, his administration has gone out of its way to make private sector union organizing more challenging.
Appendix: Methodology
This issue brief analyzes 15,834 cases closed at the NLRB in 2024 and all 25,110 cases closed from January 1, 2025, to April 29, 2026. The dismissal rates analyzed in this issue brief were similar when comparing with earlier years than 2024 or when changing the start date for the second period to later in January 2025. The NLRB lists a few possible reasons for case closure in its data, including dismissal, an informal settlement, a board order, or case withdrawal.
If the regional office decides not to issue a complaint, it gives the charging party the opportunity to withdraw its charges, and the NLRB regional director has discretion over whether to approve a withdrawal request. The NLRB regional director dismisses charges if the regional office decides not to issue a complaint and the charging party does not withdraw their charge. When a charge is dismissed, the charging party has the opportunity to appeal, usually within 14 days. Charges can be dismissed or withdrawn “non-adjusted,” meaning there was no change in the dispute, or “adjusted,” meaning the dispute was resolved, such as via an agreement between the parties. For less significant charges, the regional director may use discretion to save agency resources and dismiss charges even if the regional office still believes they have merit, though these merit dismissals are not distinguished in the data. This analysis considers a charge “dismissed” if the NLRB categorizes it as a “non-adjusted dismissal.”
Table A1 shows the proportion of closed cases that the NLRB has dismissed each year from 2024 to April 29, 2026, by the party that filed the charges.
The data used in this issue brief exclude charges that were withdrawn without adjustment. Charges can be withdrawn by the charging party if they no longer wish to pursue their allegations for whatever reason—though the NLRB must still approve the withdrawal—but they can also be withdrawn when the NLRB concludes charges lack merit. The NLRB gives the party making the allegation the opportunity to withdraw the charge voluntarily before it otherwise would be dismissed. The data do not indicate the reason why a charge was withdrawn, so an alternative analysis in Table A2 includes withdrawals to account for situations where the NLRB successfully solicited withdrawals and did not have to dismiss charges. These results include cases closed for a “non-adjusted withdrawal,” meaning the charging party withdrew the charges with no change in the underlying dispute. This version of the analysis also shows that more charges were dismissed or withdrawn when filed against employers than against unions from January 1, 2025, to April 29, 2026, compared with 2024.
Table A3 shows the total number of cases, including withdrawals, that the NLRB closed each calendar year from 2024 through April 29, 2026.