The decision by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to remain neutral in the 2024 presidential race is nothing short of historic. For decades, the Teamsters have reliably endorsed Democratic candidates, a tradition that stretches back to the Clinton era. However, the union’s leadership, led by President Sean O’Brien, has broken with this long-standing precedent, refraining from endorsing any candidate for the first time in modern memory. This is no small development, and it speaks volumes about the growing divide between union leadership and its rank-and-file members.

At the heart of this rift is the clear and rising support for Donald Trump among the Teamsters’ rank-and-file. An internal poll released by the union shows that nearly 60% of its members favored backing Trump, a result that should have given the union leadership a clear mandate. Yet, despite this strong backing, the leadership stopped short of endorsing the former president. For many, this is a sign that union elites are increasingly out of touch with the very workers they claim to represent.

The Rank-and-File Support for Trump

Donald Trump’s appeal to blue-collar workers has been a defining feature of his political success. While elites in both the Democratic and Republican establishments have often viewed him with disdain, working-class Americans see in him a fighter—someone who speaks to their concerns about jobs, wages, and American sovereignty. Trump’s strong stance on trade, his efforts to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., and his tough rhetoric on issues like immigration have resonated deeply with many union members, particularly in sectors like transportation, construction, and manufacturing.

For the Teamsters, this growing support for Trump isn’t just a trend—it’s a demand for change. The union’s members see Trump as the candidate who is willing to fight for their economic interests in a way that the Democratic Party has failed to do in recent years. With policies that emphasize economic nationalism and protecting American jobs, Trump has tapped into the frustrations of workers who have felt neglected by both parties, but particularly by Democrats who have increasingly aligned themselves with coastal elites and globalist interests.

The fact that nearly 60% of the Teamsters’ members favored an endorsement of Trump is telling. It shows that the union’s rank-and-file recognize the changes taking place in the political landscape, and they are willing to break with tradition if it means supporting a candidate who prioritizes their livelihoods.

Union Leadership’s Struggle to Adapt

Despite this clear sentiment, the union’s leadership—accustomed to backing Democrats—has found itself in a difficult position. The “most inclusive, democratic, and transparent” endorsement process in the union’s history, as President O’Brien described it, was designed to appear neutral and open to all perspectives. But as Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal noted, this process was likely meant to give the union cover to do what it has always done—endorse the Democratic candidate, regardless of member preferences. However, this time, the poll results were too strong to ignore.

Union leadership’s decision to remain neutral rather than endorse Trump reflects the growing discomfort among labor elites with the shift in political loyalty among their members. The Democratic Party, once the champion of the working class, has in recent years moved further to the left, aligning itself with social and environmental causes that often clash with the priorities of blue-collar workers. From climate change policies that threaten jobs in industries like coal and oil, to immigration policies that many see as undermining wages and job security, the disconnect between Democratic leadership and union members has become more pronounced.

The leadership’s refusal to endorse Trump, despite the overwhelming support from their rank-and-file, is a clear sign of the ideological struggle within the labor movement. While many union leaders remain tied to the Democratic Party due to historical alliances and political pressure, their members are increasingly drawn to Trump’s brand of populism.

A Win for Trump, Even Without the Endorsement

As National Review’s Jim Geraghty aptly put it, “a non-endorsement is a tie that really should have been a Trump win.” In other words, the Teamsters’ refusal to endorse Trump, while not an explicit backing, is still a significant victory for the former president. It shows that the union leadership, despite its efforts, could not fully resist the pro-Trump tide that is rising within their ranks. For Trump, this neutrality is far better than an endorsement of Kamala Harris or another Democratic candidate, and it underscores the fact that his message continues to resonate with working-class voters across the country.

Moreover, this decision could have broader implications for the labor movement as a whole. The Teamsters’ move may signal a shift in how other unions approach presidential endorsements moving forward. If more unions find themselves unable to ignore the growing support for Trump among their members, they may follow the Teamsters’ lead and opt for neutrality, rather than risk alienating their base.

Conclusion

The Teamsters’ decision not to endorse a candidate for president in 2024 marks a turning point in the relationship between labor unions and the Democratic Party. It reveals the deepening divide between union leadership and the rank-and-file, who increasingly see Donald Trump as the candidate who best represents their economic interests. For many workers, Trump’s policies offer the promise of job security, higher wages, and a stronger America—values that they feel have been abandoned by the modern Democratic Party.

While the union leadership may have hoped to quietly continue their tradition of endorsing Democrats, the overwhelming support for Trump among their members forced them to take a different path. This decision is a victory for Trump, even without an official endorsement, and it may signal a broader realignment of the labor movement in the years to come. As the political landscape continues to shift, it is clear that union members are no longer content to follow their leadership blindly—they want a voice, and they want a candidate who will fight for them.