Is a General Strike in the Offing?
A general strike is one of the most powerful tools available to working people. Unlike a typical labor strike aimed at a single employer or industry, a general strike crosses sectors, regions, and sometimes entire nations. It involves workers from all walks of life collectively refusing to work not just to demand better wages or conditions, but to confront a deeper social or political crisis. Historically, general strikes have brought governments to their knees, toppled dictators, and reshaped the economic and political order of nations.
One of the most famous examples occurred in France in May 1968, when more than ten million workers walked off the job in solidarity with student protests and widespread public frustration. Factories shut down, transportation ground to a halt, and the entire French economy was paralyzed. What began as a protest over university conditions became a nationwide movement demanding sweeping social change. The strike was so powerful that President Charles de Gaulle fled the country briefly, and his government narrowly avoided collapse by agreeing to significant concessions.
When a government imposes tyranny, when it deregulates every safeguard and removes the people's last remaining levers of influence, courts, elections, science, truth, the only rational response left is mass non-cooperation. A general strike is not chaos. It is equilibrium asserting itself. It is the people applying pressure in proportion to the weight placed upon them.”
In the United States, there has never been a full-scale general strike of this magnitude, though there have been regional instances, like the 1934 strikes in Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Toledo, that galvanized the labor movement and helped usher in New Deal reforms. Today, however, the conditions are ripe for something larger. Economic inequality is soaring. Corporate influence over both political parties is nearly absolute. Authoritarian behavior from the executive branch is increasingly normalized. Climate collapse looms, while the most powerful interests remain committed to short-term profits over survival. And under Trump’s current administration, democratic institutions are being openly dismantled, often under the guise of populist rhetoric.
In such a climate, a general strike in the U.S. might be triggered by something that crosses a moral threshold for millions such as the mass elimination or privatization of Social Security and Medicare, the banning of abortion nationwide, a suspension of democratic elections, or a militarized response to public protest. If Trump were to openly jail political opponents or declare a national emergency to assume extraordinary powers, these actions could catalyze a nationwide response.
For a general strike to work in America, participation would have to come from across key sectors. Transportation workers, truck drivers, rail operators, and airline employees, would need to halt the movement of goods and people. Healthcare workers, especially nurses and hospital staff, would need to reduce operations to emergency-only levels, forcing public attention on the risks to basic services. Public school teachers, often the moral compass of their communities, would likely be among the first to walk out. Service workers at Amazon warehouses, grocery chains, and food distribution hubs would have enormous power to disrupt supply chains. Even gig workers, those driving for Uber, delivering food, or staffing warehouses, would need to join, despite lacking union protections. Without these sectors, the strike would be symbolic, not systemic.
Here’s a vital point. A general strike without clear demands may express rage, but it won’t create change.
For a general strike to succeed, especially in the United States, where public opinion can turn quickly and media framing is often hostile, the demands must be unambiguous, focused, and grounded in achievable goals. They have to speak to both the immediate crisis and the broader vision that unites people across class, race, and region.
Vague slogans like “justice for all” or “fight the system” won’t cut it. People need to know why they’re risking their jobs, what they’re fighting for, and what success looks like. That means demands must be:
Clear: No bureaucratic language, no ten-point white papers. Just plain language that resonates—“Restore labor protections,” “No cuts to Medicare,” “End corporate immunity.”
Concise: Three to five central demands. More than that, and the message gets diluted. Less than that, and it may feel too narrow to justify nationwide disruption.
Reasonable: Not utopian. Not abstract. The demands should be rooted in what’s widely supported and morally justifiable ideally, things the majority of Americans already believe in, even if their representatives don’t.
Doable: The path to implementation should be visible. If the demand is “repeal X executive order,” “pass Y legislation,” or “enact emergency worker protections,” then the public and the media can follow whether the government complies. That creates pressure and clarity.
But organizing a general strike in the U.S. faces monumental barriers. Unlike France or other countries with strong centralized labor federations, American labor is fragmented and weakened. Union membership is at historic lows. Labor laws, particularly the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, explicitly limit solidarity strikes and empower employers to fire or sue workers who participate. Public sector workers are often legally forbidden to strike altogether. Gig workers, classified as independent contractors, lack even the basic protections of employment law.
Perhaps most critically, the American workforce is atomized and economically vulnerable. The vast majority live paycheck to paycheck. Even the idea of losing a few days of income is untenable for millions. And while the pandemic showed the vital role these workers play in keeping society functioning, it also revealed how easily they can be dismissed, disciplined, or replaced. Without significant mutual aid structures or strike funds, a general strike would require unprecedented preparation and support.
Then there is the question of response. Under the current Trump administration, a general strike would almost certainly be met with retaliation. The president has already shown a willingness to use the Department of Justice and Homeland Security as political tools. Strikers could face mass arrests, surveillance, or asset seizures under the pretense of national security or anti-terrorism statutes. Martial law could be declared in areas where protests and work stoppages escalate. Major media outlets, already weakened and politically divided, would likely echo government talking points, framing strikers as agitators, criminals, or tools of foreign interference. Corporate platforms like X or Meta might be weaponized to identify and suppress organizing efforts.
Still, history shows that power does not concede without a fight. The labor struggles of the past century, many of them bloody, secured rights we now take for granted. If enough people participate, if the strike garners broad public sympathy, and if organizers are prepared for the inevitable crackdown, a general strike could reshape the direction of the country. It would not just be a protest. It would be a declaration: that the people, not corporations or autocrats, hold the true power in a democracy.
Just as Newton’s Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, a general strike can be seen not as a radical disruption, but as a measured, inevitable response to the accumulation of state and corporate overreach. It is physics applied to politics. When the government strips away civil rights, crushes labor protections, and consolidates power into the hands of the few, the people are left with no conventional outlet to correct the course. A general strike becomes not just justified, but logical.