Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What has President Trump done in office that directly effects In Home Support Services workers?
Executive summary
President Trump’s administrations (2017–2021 and 2025–present) have prompted policy moves and proposals that advocates say directly affect In‑Home Supportive Services (IHSS) workers — most concretely a 2019–2020 federal rule change by the Trump HHS/CMS that sought to limit paycheck deductions for union dues and benefits (which a court blocked) and later budget and immigration actions under his return to office that advocates warn could threaten Medicaid funding and worker availability (court vacatur of the rule noted) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention other specific, enacted Trump policies that directly changed IHSS wages or state‑level collective bargaining rights beyond the CMS rule and related litigation (not found in current reporting).
1. A federal CMS rule aimed at payroll deductions — and a court fight
The clearest, documented action tying the Trump Administration to IHSS workers was a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rule that would have restricted states’ ability to deduct union dues and benefit payments from Medicaid paychecks for home‑care workers; California AG Xavier Becerra led a multistate suit and a federal judge blocked/vacated the rule as unlawfully promulgated [1] [2] [3]. California’s filings argued the rule “would have unlawfully created barriers” to collective bargaining practices that for decades let IHSS workers obtain benefits and dues deductions, potentially undermining union stability and benefits access for hundreds of thousands of homecare providers [2].
2. What the rule would have changed for IHSS workers in practice
Advocates and state officials said the CMS rule would have made it harder for IHSS workers to have automatic paycheck deductions for things like voluntary union dues or employer‑negotiated benefits, jeopardizing access to health insurance and other union‑provided services; unions warned the change could disrupt long‑standing collective bargaining relationships that support wages, training and retention for IHSS providers [1] [5] [6]. Reporting estimated the rule threatened bargaining rights for more than half a million California homecare workers and several hundred thousand nationwide, a figure cited in DOJ and news coverage of the litigation [1] [3].
3. Court outcome and ripple effects
Federal courts blocked and vacated the Trump‑era rule; California’s DOJ celebrated a victory saying the rule was illegally promulgated and would have put IHSS care at risk [2]. News outlets and unions reported the injunction as a concrete protection for workers’ payroll deduction practices, at least while litigation continued [3] [6]. That judicial outcome limited immediate, direct changes to IHSS operating mechanics coming from that rule [2].
4. Broader budget and policy threats flagged by advocates
Beyond the CMS rule, unions and state advocates warn that Trump administration priorities and congressional proposals tied to his agenda could threaten Medicaid financing that pays a large share of IHSS costs — for example, reporting notes congressional plans tied to renewing tax cuts sought cuts to Medicaid on the order of hundreds of billions, which advocacy groups say could endanger IHSS funding and the ability of beneficiaries to live at home [4] [7]. California unions and coverage argue that because about 55% of IHSS funding is federal Medicaid money (as cited by union advocacy), reductions in federal Medicaid could directly affect providers and clients [4]. These are policy and budgetary risks rather than single‑rule changes and depend on Congressional action and state responses [4] [7].
5. Immigration and workforce availability concerns
Analysts flagged that executive orders and immigration policy changes under Trump’s 2025 return could affect worker availability and employer hiring, potentially influencing who is eligible to work in caregiving roles or hold work authorization — a Mayer Brown legal brief highlights early executive‑order shifts narrowing humanitarian protections and work permits that employers should monitor for workforce effects [8]. Sources link that more to employer and labor‑market implications than to a specific IHSS regulatory change [8].
6. Competing perspectives and limitations in the record
Unions and California officials portrayed Trump administration moves as direct threats to IHSS workers’ bargaining power, benefits, and program funding [1] [5] [6]. Federal agencies under Trump framed rule changes as regulatory clarifications to Medicaid payment requirements (available sources do not mention a Trump administration public framing beyond rule text and litigation coverage). Court decisions and injunctions limited immediate effect of the CMS rule, and reporting frames budgetary and immigration risks as contingent on later Congressional or executive actions rather than single, irreversible shifts [2] [7] [8].
7. Bottom line for IHSS workers today
The most direct, documented Trump‑era action affecting IHSS workers was the CMS rule restricting paycheck deductions for union dues and benefits — a rule that prompted multistate litigation and was vacated by a federal court, preventing its immediate enforcement [1] [2] [3]. Broader threats cited by unions and health policy outlets concern proposed Medicaid funding cuts and immigration changes under the Trump agenda that could, if enacted, reduce federal funding for IHSS or affect caregiver labor supply — but those outcomes depend on subsequent legislative or administrative decisions [4] [7] [8].