Skip to main content

A governing scenario · Reviewed September 22, 2026

Josh Hawley
Beyond 100 days.

Hawley's labor, technology and trade themes combine worker protections with stronger market controls. Gains in bargaining power could coexist with higher prices or reduced employer demand, depending on the details.

A hypothetical presidency, not a claim of candidacy or an election forecast. Policy effects below are analytical possibilities conditional on authority, financing and delivery.

Person-specific focus · source-linked analysis

From a position to a governing program

The selected themes below come from this person’s series coverage. A source passage is separated from our analysis of implementation. The proposed federal pathway is an analytical translation, not a newly discovered promise. Unselected issues remain outside this review.

01 · Legislation central

Work, wages and bargaining power

Series context · Limited or mixed evidence

Hawley is lead sponsor of the Higher Wages for American Workers Act of 2025 (S.2013), introduced June 10, 2025 with Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour, indexed to inflation, referred to HELP. An earlier version, the Blue Collar Bonus Act (S.536, 117th), proposed a refundable wage credit for workers below the median wage. His campaign/office explicitly calls for a doubled minimum wage — a striking statutory item for a Republican president. This would require…

Read the full context: Wages and the economy: the $15 bill

What can start before the program is complete

Enforce existing labor law and define the workers, employers and practices affected by proposed changes.

What must change for the result to endure

Legislate rights or standards where necessary and monitor employer adaptation and compliance.

Drill down: failure modes and the test of success

Where it can stall: Coverage exemptions, weak enforcement and changes in business models can dilute formal rights.

Evidence that would change the assessment: Wages and hours, employment, compliance, prices, worker turnover and outcomes for excluded workers. Compare outcomes with the pre-policy baseline and affected groups that did not receive the intervention; distinguish outside shocks from the policy’s contribution.

Before assigning a net winner: obtain the actual proposal, funding source, affected population, transition plan and independent cost estimate. An announcement, sponsorship or appropriation alone does not establish the final effect.

02 · Mixed executive and legislative authorities

AI governance and deployment

Series context · Limited or mixed evidence

On Sept. 29, 2025 Hawley, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), introduced the framework bill to establish legal standards for advanced artificial intelligence products (S.2937), including licensing and enforcement provisions for frontier AI. In September 2026 he and Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz successfully opposed a bipartisan bill (Schiff-Banks) that would have given AI labs an antitrust exemption for safety coordination. The digest is explicit about the split: an AI licensing regime requires Congress, but DOJ and…

Read the full context: Tech and AI: the licensing framework

What can start before the program is complete

Separate federal procurement and agency practice from proposed duties on private developers; define the harms and systems covered.

What must change for the result to endure

Obtain necessary legislation and build testing, enforcement and appeal capacity that can adapt as technology changes.

Drill down: failure modes and the test of success

Where it can stall: Testing expertise, rapidly changing models and fragmented authority can leave formal standards disconnected from actual risk.

Evidence that would change the assessment: Independently measured failures, redress, adoption quality, compliance burden, competition and workforce adjustment. Compare outcomes with the pre-policy baseline and affected groups that did not receive the intervention; distinguish outside shocks from the policy’s contribution.

Before assigning a net winner: obtain the actual proposal, funding source, affected population, transition plan and independent cost estimate. An announcement, sponsorship or appropriation alone does not establish the final effect.

03 · Mixed executive and legislative authorities

Tariffs and protected production

Series context · Limited or mixed evidence

Hawley sponsors the Protecting Our Farms and Homes from China Act (S.2258, introduced July 10, 2025), barring CCP-affiliated entities from owning U.S. agricultural land or residential property. He earlier sponsored S.J.Res.71 (116th) to withdraw U.S. approval of the WTO agreement. His crypto record runs in the same economic-nationalist direction: he was one of only two Senate Republicans (with Rand Paul) to vote against final passage of the GENIUS Act stablecoin bill in July 2025, and voted No again on the crypto…

Read the full context: China and trade: tariffs, land and the WTO

What can start before the program is complete

Specify the goods, authority, duration and exemptions for proposed restrictions; assess domestic substitutes.

What must change for the result to endure

Pair any long-lived protection with investment, competition and a measurable exit or review condition.

Drill down: failure modes and the test of success

Where it can stall: Protection can raise costs without creating competitive supply when capacity or technology is missing.

Evidence that would change the assessment: Domestic output and productivity, input prices, retaliation, household purchasing power and net employment shifts. Compare outcomes with the pre-policy baseline and affected groups that did not receive the intervention; distinguish outside shocks from the policy’s contribution.

Before assigning a net winner: obtain the actual proposal, funding source, affected population, transition plan and independent cost estimate. An announcement, sponsorship or appropriation alone does not establish the final effect.

Beyond the opening hundred days

How Hawley’s agenda could develop

Choose the governing conditions. These scenarios test mechanisms and tradeoffs; they do not assign election odds, assume passage, or predict a numerical economic result.

Assume the specific proposal wins the votes and funding it requires; party control alone is insufficient.

Years 1–2

Use the first two years to enact the specified law, finish required procedures and start delivery.

Years 3–4

By years 3–4, evaluate actual use, costs and unintended effects; amend or stop ineffective components.

Years 5–10

In years 5–10, assess whether later governments retain the law, financing and operating capacity. This horizon does not assume reelection.

Chart 4 · From agenda to durable governance
ThemeWhat this scenario requiresWhat can interrupt it
Work, wages and bargaining powerLegislate rights or standards where necessary and monitor employer adaptation and compliance.Coverage exemptions, weak enforcement and changes in business models can dilute formal rights.
AI governance and deploymentObtain necessary legislation and build testing, enforcement and appeal capacity that can adapt as technology changes.Testing expertise, rapidly changing models and fragmented authority can leave formal standards disconnected from actual risk.
Tariffs and protected productionPair any long-lived protection with investment, competition and a measurable exit or review condition.Protection can raise costs without creating competitive supply when capacity or technology is missing.

Conditional winners and losers

Who could gain—and who could bear costs

Chart 5 · Qualitative exposure map. These groups can overlap: the same person can gain as a worker and pay more as a consumer or taxpayer. No net ranking is possible without specified legislation, financing and independent estimates.

The channels below assume the relevant policy is enacted and delivered as designed. Benefits remain conditional on implementation.

Work, wages and bargaining power

Potential beneficiaries

Covered workers could gain pay, bargaining power or time security if protections are enforced.

Potential costs and risks

Employers and consumers may bear higher costs; hiring, hours and automation responses can change who benefits.

Check the result: Wages and hours, employment, compliance, prices, worker turnover and outcomes for excluded workers.

AI governance and deployment

Potential beneficiaries

Users, workers and responsible developers could benefit from more reliable systems and clearer accountability.

Potential costs and risks

Developers and adopters may face costs or slower deployment; poorly designed rules can entrench large firms or restrict lawful use.

Check the result: Independently measured failures, redress, adoption quality, compliance burden, competition and workforce adjustment.

Tariffs and protected production

Potential beneficiaries

Protected producers and some workers could gain if demand shifts to viable domestic supply.

Potential costs and risks

Consumers and downstream firms may pay more; exporters may lose access through retaliation.

Check the result: Domestic output and productivity, input prices, retaliation, household purchasing power and net employment shifts.

Keep the source trail intact

Original articles and citations

The original reporting and analysis remain unchanged. Citations below are retained from those articles and are not all independently revalidated in this extension. Consult the linked passage, date and underlying document before treating a proposal or officeholding assertion as established fact.

All 1 series article

View 10 preserved external citations
  1. Hawley Senate office — committee assignments (119th Congress) (article context)
  2. Congress.gov — S.2013, Higher Wages for American Workers Act of 2025 (article context)
  3. Welch Senate office — Welch, Hawley lead bipartisan minimum-wage bill (article context)
  4. Congress.gov — S.1498, HONEST Act (congressional stock-trading ban) (article context)
  5. AP News — Trump chides Hawley over bill to ban stock trades in government (article context)
  6. GovInfo — S.2937, AI legal-standards framework bill text (article context)
  7. Reuters — Senate vote on crypto market-structure bill (Sept. 15, 2026) (article context)
  8. PBS NewsHour — Senate GENIUS Act stablecoin bill vote (article context)
  9. Hawley Senate office — letter calling on FDA to reinstate mifepristone safety regulations (article context)
  10. AP News — Senate Venezuela war-powers resolution vote (January 2026) (article context)

Framework for the new analysis

The framework sources explain institutions and constraints; they do not support a numerical forecast or endorse these scenarios. Read the full method ↗