Why the Teamsters Aren’t Buying the Democrats’ Pitch

Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a Bay Area Democrat often mentioned as a possible presidential contender, visited the Atlanta headquarters of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters this summer and then publicly opposed autonomous long-haul trucks. That stance—framed as “prioritizing people over machines”—stands out coming from a lawmaker who represents much of Silicon Valley, the epicenter of autonomous-vehicle innovation.

Khanna’s position reflects a broader political calculus: the Teamsters remain politically influential, and their leadership has pushed efforts in more than a dozen states to block autonomous trucking. Democrats who hope to win back union support have sometimes responded by adopting union leaders’ top policy demands, a strategy critics call “deliverism.” But recent experience suggests that pandering to union leadership does not necessarily translate into rank-and-file loyalty.

Safety, jobs and competing narratives

Trucking-related crashes kill more than 5,000 people each year in the United States. Advocates of autonomous long-haul trucks contend that widespread adoption could prevent a large share of those deaths; some estimates suggest as many as 600,000 lives could be saved over several decades. Proponents also note the potential for new jobs in the autonomous-vehicle ecosystem—industry research estimates roughly 110,000 new roles nationwide—though the distribution of those jobs would differ from current trucking employment.

At the same time, the Teamsters’ membership is diverse. Many members are not long-haul interstate truckers but instead work in last-mile delivery, warehousing, and other logistics roles that are far less likely to be directly displaced by long-haul autonomous rigs in the near term. That mismatch between leadership priorities and many members’ day-to-day concerns helps explain why opposition to autonomous trucks can be more political symbolism than a reflection of rank-and-file risk.

Why deliverism is failing

There are two persistent strategic mistakes Democrats make when trying to reclaim union voters. First, they treat “union voters” as if they form a single, uniform bloc. In reality, pro-Democratic strength concentrates in public-sector unions (teachers, municipal employees) and service-sector unions (like SEIU). Private-sector unions such as the Teamsters have different histories and political dynamics.

Second, Democrats often assume union members vote according to their leadership’s public agenda. That assumption broke down in 2024: many post-election analyses found cultural issues—immigration and debates over gender and identity—were decisive for a substantial slice of Teamsters members. Policy gestures aimed at union leaders (rescuing pensions, opposing automation) therefore have limited reach when rank-and-file voters are motivated by other concerns.

What Democrats should do instead

Instead of reflexively adopting union leaders’ policy demands, Democrats should rebuild trust with working-class voters by listening to their priorities, addressing cultural concerns respectfully, and offering concrete economic policies that speak to everyday needs—wages, benefits, workplace safety, and regional economic opportunity. That means targeted outreach, a broader message that transcends symbolic concessions, and coalition-building that reflects the diversity of union membership.

There will be no cinematic reconciliation scene. The Teamsters’ leadership and their members have charted a course; Democrats need to write a strategy that meets voters where they actually are rather than staging public displays meant to win applause from union bosses.

About the author: Adam Kovacevich is the founder and CEO of the Chamber of Progress, a tech-industry coalition that leans left. He has over 20 years of experience at the intersection of technology and politics, having led public policy at Google and Lime and served as a Democratic aide on Capitol Hill.