It is great that Trump is going to bring jobs back to America, but who is going to get those jobs? Not Americans

I hear your concern about jobs and who will benefit from them. Trump’s push to bring jobs back often focuses on manufacturing and industries like steel, automotive, or energy - sectors he’s talked about revitalizing through tariffs and "America First" policies. The idea is to create opportunities for American workers, especially in places like the Rust Belt, where unemployment has hit hard. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows manufacturing jobs did tick up during his first term—about 400,000 added pre-COVID—but they’ve historically gone to a mix of people: citizens, legal immigrants, and sometimes undocumented workers, depending on the industry and enforcement.

Your skepticism about Americans not getting these jobs could point to a few realities. Companies might still hire cheaper labor if oversight is lax. Undocumented immigrants often fill roles in construction or agriculture, for example. Or maybe you’re thinking about automation eating into those gains; factories today need fewer humans than they did decades ago. There’s also the question of skills. Some of these "new" jobs might go to workers from abroad with specific training if locals aren’t ready.

Who do you think is most likely to snag these jobs instead of Americans? I’m curious about what’s driving your take here.

Tell me more about Peter Navarro's claim that all of the jobs created under the Biden administration went to illegals.

Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor to Donald Trump, has recently made a bold claim that "virtually all" new jobs created during Joe Biden’s presidency have gone to illegal immigrants, while American citizens have disproportionately lost jobs. This statement came during an interview with Breitbart News in March 2025, where he argued this trend reflects a failure of Biden’s economic and immigration policies, calling it "freaking insane" and tying it to a free-trade model that disadvantages American workers.

Navarro’s claim hinges on an interpretation of job growth data, specifically pointing to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The CIS, which advocates for lower immigration levels, analyzed Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data and found that from January 2020 to January 2025, 88% of U.S. job growth - about 4.7 million out of 5.3 million jobs - went to foreign-born workers, with an estimated 60% of those being illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, native-born American employment grew by just 645,000 jobs over the same period. Navarro frames this as evidence that Biden’s policies have prioritized migrants over citizens, suggesting a near-total displacement of American workers in net job creation.

However, there’s nuance to unpack here. The timeframe Navarro references via the CIS report starts in January 2020, a year before Biden took office in January 2021. This includes the massive job losses from the COVID-19 pandemic under Trump, which skews the "net" job creation picture. When looking strictly at Biden’s tenure—say, February 2021 to early 2025—BLS data shows a different story: native-born employment increased by roughly 5.7 million jobs by February 2024, alongside a faster 20% growth rate for foreign-born workers (about 5.5 million jobs). This indicates that while foreign-born workers, including legal and illegal immigrants, have seen significant job gains, native-born Americans have also benefited from job growth, contradicting the "virtually all" assertion when taken literally.

The foreign-born category in BLS data includes everyone from naturalized citizens to undocumented workers, and there’s no direct breakdown of how many are illegal. Estimates like CIS’s 60% figure rely on assumptions about immigration patterns, such as the surge in border encounters (8.1 million from fiscal 2021 to November 2023, per Customs and Border Protection). Yet, not all encountered migrants stay or work—2.8 million were removed or expelled, and others remain in legal limbo. Still, the rapid rise in foreign-born employment, especially post-pandemic, aligns with increased migration, which Navarro and others argue dilutes opportunities for Americans.

Critics of Navarro’s claim, like PolitiFact, have rated similar statements (e.g., from J.D. Vance) as misleading, pointing out that native-born unemployment remains low (4.3% in mid-2024) and that job growth isn’t zero-sum—immigrants often fill roles in sectors like agriculture or construction that native workers avoid. Economists like Giovanni Peri suggest immigrant labor can even boost native employment by growing the economy. On the flip side, the CIS highlights a troubling trend: a near-record 22.1% of working-age U.S.-born men were out of the labor force in January 2025, hinting at deeper issues Navarro might be tapping into.

Navarro’s take amplifies a real disparity—foreign-born workers, including an unknown but likely large chunk of illegal immigrants, have claimed a big share of job growth under Biden. But "virtually all" overstates it when millions of native-born Americans have also gained jobs. The debate’s more about proportions and priorities than a total shutout. What’s your angle on this—do you see it as a policy failure or just economic reality?

Tell me about reports claiming that 97% of corporate new hires since Covid make up a non-white male workforce. Cite sources.

There are no widely recognized, credible reports that specifically claim "97% of corporate new hires since COVID make up a non-white male workforce." This figure does not appear in any major analyses from reputable sources like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or prominent news outlets that have studied post-COVID hiring trends. It’s possible this number stems from a misinterpretation or exaggeration of related data, so let’s explore the closest relevant claims and their sources to clarify.

One notable report that might be confused with your query comes from Bloomberg News, published on September 25, 2023, titled "Corporate America Promised to Hire a Lot More People of Color. It Actually Did." This analysis examined workforce demographic reports (EEO-1 forms) submitted to the EEOC by 88 S&P 100 companies for 2020 and 2021. It found that these companies added 323,094 new jobs in 2021, with 94% of that net increase—approximately 302,570 jobs—going to people of color (defined as Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other non-white groups). White workers accounted for just 6%, or 20,524 jobs. However, this statistic reflects net job growth (total workforce change), not the demographics of all new hires, and it’s specific to 2021, not the entire post-COVID period. Importantly, the data doesn’t break down hires by both race and gender simultaneously (e.g., "non-white male"), so it doesn’t directly support a "97% non-white male" claim.

Critics, like The Daily Wire in a September 30, 2023, article ("Bloomberg Flubs Data For Bombshell Report That Only 6% Of New Corporate Hires Are White"), argued Bloomberg’s methodology was flawed. They noted that EEO-1 data only shows year-end workforce totals, not individual hires, and that turnover (e.g., retiring white workers replaced by diverse hires) could explain much of the shift. Their analysis estimated white hires in 2021 were closer to 46% of total hires, not 6% of net growth, based on broader workforce demographics and replacement patterns. Still, no "97%" figure emerges here either.

Another angle might relate to broader workforce trends. The Washington Post, on September 28, 2023 ("Minorities Are Delivering All the US Labor Supply Growth"), highlighted that people of color accounted for a disproportionate share of labor force growth post-COVID, driven by immigration and younger, more diverse cohorts entering the workforce. BLS data supports this: foreign-born workers (many non-white) grew from 17.4% of the workforce in 2019 to 18.1% in 2022, with faster employment growth rates than native-born workers. However, this is about labor supply trends, not corporate hires, and certainly not 97% of new hires being "non-white males."

The "97%" figure could also be a distortion of anecdotal or niche claims. For instance, a ResumeBuilder.com survey from November 15, 2022, found 16% of hiring managers were told to deprioritize white male candidates, hinting at DEI pressures. But this is far from a comprehensive hiring statistic. Social media or fringe outlets might amplify such numbers—e.g., Outkick’s September 27, 2023, piece ("So, 94% Of New Corporate Jobs Go To Non-Whites") speculated on anti-white bias but didn’t claim 97% or focus solely on "non-white males."

Without a specific report citing "97% of corporate new hires since COVID" as non-white males, the closest verifiable data is Bloomberg’s 94% people-of-color figure for S&P 100 net job growth in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of sources:

• Bloomberg News (September 25, 2023): "Corporate America Promised to Hire a Lot More People of Color. It Actually Did." Reports 94% of 323,094 net new jobs in 2021 went to people of color in 88 S&P 100 firms.

• The Daily Wire (September 30, 2023): "Bloomberg Flubs Data..." Critiques Bloomberg, estimating white hires at ~46% of total 2021 hires.

• The Washington Post (September 28, 2023): "Minorities Are Delivering All the US Labor Supply Growth." Notes broader labor force trends, not specific corporate hires.

• ResumeBuilder.com (November 15, 2022): Survey on hiring biases, but no 97% claim.

If you’ve encountered a specific "97% non-white male" claim elsewhere, it’s likely a misrepresentation or unsourced assertion. The data we have shows significant diversity in post-COVID job growth, but nothing precisely matches that figure or gender-race combination across all corporate hires since 2020. What do you think—did you see this in a particular article or post? I can dig deeper if you point me there!

Corporate New Hires Post-COVID

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, major U.S. companies have made significant efforts to increase diversity in their hiring practices. According to Bloomberg, in 2021, 94% of new hires at S&P 100 companies were people of color, including non-white males. This shift followed public commitments by several companies to hire more people of color after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. However, many of these new hires were in lower-level roles such as sales and labor, rather than in higher-paying and more powerful managerial and professional positions. It's important to note that while these numbers indicate a positive trend in diversity hiring, the overall composition of high-paying roles remains predominantly white. For instance, in the year following the Black Lives Matter protests, the share of executive, managerial, and professional roles held by people of color increased by about 2 percentage points compared to 2020, but this still leaves most companies with a lopsided workforce where white people hold a disproportionate share of high-paying jobs. Additionally, some companies have since cut jobs amid an economic slowdown and a growing backlash against corporate diversity initiatives. As a result, the pace of change seen in 2021 may not have been sustained in subsequent years. In summary, while there has been a notable increase in the hiring of non-white males and other people of color in lower-level roles since the pandemic, significant work remains to achieve greater diversity in higher-paying and more influential positions within corporations.

17GEN4.com