In 2025, immigration raids have evolved from isolated political events into a broader economic, cultural, and emotional force reshaping how Americans shop, work, and trust institutions. The ThinkNow Immigration Raids Impact Study shows that the effects extend far beyond undocumented individuals: Hispanic, Asian, Gen Z, Millennial, and even affluent U.S. households are experiencing shifts in spending, well-being, and brand expectations.
For brands, understanding this environment is not optional. It is essential for anticipating changes in demand and protecting business health.
Download the full report here.
The study is based on a representative sample of 1,500 U.S. adults, balanced across gender, ethnicity, region, and generation. This diversity allows us to capture both direct and indirect effects of immigration raids and to understand how different groups react emotionally and economically.
This breadth provides brands with a reliable foundation for strategic planning, market segmentation, and message development.
The impact is especially pronounced among Hispanic Americans, a segment whose purchasing power has reached $4 trillion in 2025—larger than India’s entire economy. Hispanic households are bigger, more multigenerational, increasingly educated (18.8% hold college degrees), and continue to drive workforce expansion: in 2023 alone they added 820,000 new workers, offsetting a decline of 560,000 among non-Latinos.
Yet this economic engine is being constrained at its core.
Forty-five percent of Hispanic households have reduced spending due to fear of ICE activities, and 44% are avoiding public places including restaurants, retail stores, entertainment venues, and service businesses. For brands, this is a clear signal that immigration-related fear is reshaping demand in categories that rely on foot traffic, discretionary spending, and in-person engagement.
Fear is becoming a measurable economic force. Nationally, 37% of Americans are delaying major purchases, and among those earning $100K+, the number rises to 45%. This means that immigration raids are not a “niche issue” affecting only certain communities; they are creating a climate of caution that slows consumption across socioeconomic groups.
Brands that misinterpret this slowdown as a marketing issue rather than an emotional and sociopolitical one risk misallocating budgets, inventory, and forecasting assumptions.
The emotional impact is profound. In just one year, pride in being American among Hispanics dropped from 77% to 54%, and belief in the American Dream fell from 66% to 44%. These declines reflect more than opinion shifts—they signal reduced optimism, which is strongly correlated with consumer spending, risk tolerance, and brand engagement.
For brands, this underscores the need for communication grounded in empathy, stability, and emotional intelligence.
Despite political polarization, public opinion on immigration is more nuanced than headlines suggest. Sixty-four percent of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to stay with a path to legal status, while only 29% support deportation.
This matters because consumers increasingly expect brands to reflect their values. Among Hispanics, trust in national brands has fallen sharply to just 18% positive, and 53% believe brands should publicly oppose immigration raids. In 2025, silence is no longer neutral—it is interpreted as a stance.
The emotional and financial tension is already influencing key retail moments. This year, only 17% of Americans plan to spend more during the holidays, while 25% plan to spend less. For Hispanics, the share planning to increase holiday spending is half of what it was in 2023, signaling anxiety directly tied to the immigration environment.
Brands must integrate emotional and political context into seasonal planning, not just historical purchasing behavior.
The ThinkNow Immigration Raids Impact Report 2025 makes it clear that immigration raids are not just humanitarian or political events—they are market signals. The following strategic lessons highlight what brands should do now to protect equity, maintain relevance, and build trust.
In the end, the data reveals a simple truth: immigration raids are reshaping the U.S. consumer landscape in ways brands can’t afford to ignore. Fear, identity, and cultural tension are now powerful market forces, influencing everything from daily purchases to long-term brand trust. Companies that respond with empathy, clarity, and cultural intelligence won’t just navigate this moment—they’ll emerge stronger, more relevant, and better aligned with the consumers who are defining America’s future.
For full insights, demographic deep-dives, data visualizations, and category-specific implications, download the ThinkNow Immigration Raids Impact Report 2025.
As brands navigate a fast-changing consumer landscape, one truth has become impossible to ignore: Gen Z is rewriting every rule of multicultural marketing. For years, language served as the primary indicator of culture, especially in Hispanic marketing, but new data from Culture Decoded, a study by ThinkNow and LatiNation, shows that those assumptions no longer hold.
Spanish as identity marker is declining. Culture is rising. And Gen Z expects brands to understand the difference.
In an era where identity is fluid, multi-layered, and shaped by digital environments, brands must rethink how they connect with young multicultural audiences or risk losing relevance.
According to the study, identification with Latino culture is increasing, even as Spanish usage declines in U.S. households. Gen Z is redefining identity:
This shift reflects a broader trend: Culture is no longer tied to language. It's tied to lived experience, digital ecosystems, and global connectedness.
That's why Gen Z today can engage deeply with Bad Bunny, K-pop, Afro-Latino creators, and English-language soccer broadcasts with equal passion. Being multicultural isn't "Latino vs. non-Latino." It's cultural fluidity.
Gen Z has an extremely sharp radar for detecting inauthenticity. They instantly recognize when something feels forced or superficial.
The data shows:
Brands that treat culture as a box to check, especially during heritage months, lose credibility. Gen Z wants something deeper: creators with real lived experiences, content informed by cultural insights, and storytelling that feels relevant to right now.
As Oscar Padilla of LatiNation says: "Culture first. Language is secondary."
One of the clearest takeaways from the podcast: brands cannot do this alone. Authenticity requires collaboration.
LatiNation's success with shows like Desmadre demonstrates why:
The formula works because creators bring context, nuance, and credibility that brands cannot generate internally.
For marketers, this means shifting from "content production" to co-creation.
Reaching this generation isn't about choosing between TV, social media, digital audio, or streaming. Gen Z uses all of it, often at the same time.
They may watch an English-language soccer match, comment on it on TikTok, follow the creators on Instagram, and then listen to the podcast afterward.
This makes cross-platform cultural consistency essential. The question isn't "Where do we reach Gen Z?" but rather "How do we show up authentically wherever they are?"
In this episode of The New Mainstream Podcast, Mario Carrasco, Co-Founder of ThinkNow, spoke with Oscar Padilla, Head of Digital Innovation & Growth at LatiNation, about these topics and more.
We invite you to listen to the full episode to dive deeper into identity, authenticity, cultural evolution, and how brands can genuinely connect with Hispanic Gen Z.
When the SBA changed its 8(a) program in 2023, many small business owners were caught off guard. For decades, race and gender were presumed indicators of social disadvantage. That changed overnight. Suddenly, every applicant had to write a personal narrative explaining how they experienced disadvantage in education, employment, or business. Back then, I wrote about how the change required applicants to submit a personal narrative to stay in the 8(a) program.
Now the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has followed the same path. Their new Interim Final Rule removes race and gender as automatic indicators of disadvantage for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. Every firm, new or existing, must now prove individual social and economic disadvantage through a written statement and financial documentation.
This change affects every DBE-certified firm in the country. Agencies like LA Metro have already paused setting DBE contract goals while they reevaluate firms under the new rules. It is the same process SBA went through with 8(a), and the same lessons apply.
When the SBA rule first came out, it required every 8(a) applicant to write a personal narrative describing specific examples of discrimination that caused professional or financial harm. Most of us had never written anything like that before.
At ThinkNow, a 100% Hispanic-owned firm, we had to describe moments in our lives that shaped how we were treated in education, employment, and business. Writing those examples was not easy, but it was revealing. The process made clear how bias and systemic barriers had influenced our journey as Latino business owners in an industry that is still overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white.
In the end, the SBA was not asking for emotion. They wanted evidence. They wanted a clear cause-and-effect between a moment of discrimination and a tangible setback. That same approach now applies to the DOT’s DBE program.
The new DOT rule eliminates the presumption that minorities or women are socially and economically disadvantaged. Everyone must now demonstrate their disadvantage through specific, documented examples.
If you are certified as a DBE, you will need to prepare to requalify. If you are applying for the first time, your narrative will determine whether you are approved.
The good news is that you can write a strong narrative by being factual, specific, and clear about how discrimination has affected your career or business.
The SBA format used for the 8(a) program is the best starting point for the DOT’s new rules. It requires two detailed examples of discrimination that had a negative effect on your professional life. Each example should include:
Here’s how it looks in practice:
“On [date], I applied for a position at [xxxx]. Another applicant, who was not [Hispanic/African American/Female/etc], and I had nearly identical qualifications and prior work experience. After the interviews, he was offered a front-of-store sales associate position with higher pay and commission opportunities, while I was offered a lower-paying stockroom job. When I asked about the difference, I was told that customers “relate better” to certain employees. That decision limited my income and delayed my ability to support myself financially at a critical point in my life.”
That one paragraph includes everything the agencies look for: time, place, cause, and impact.
Write two examples like that, ideally from different areas such as education, employment, or business. Avoid vague statements like “I have always faced discrimination.” Instead, focus on specific events that changed the direction of your life or business.
For each example, explain how the discrimination caused real harm. This could include:
The reviewers are not judging how you felt. They are evaluating whether discrimination had a material effect on your professional advancement.
Close your narrative by showing perseverance and commitment to growth. The SBA and DOT both value evidence of resilience. Make it clear that, despite barriers, you continue to build your business and contribute to your community.
Through ThinkNow, we built a multicultural insights firm that challenges the very barriers we experienced. Our goal is to ensure that the next generation of diverse entrepreneurs does not face the same obstacles.
Both the SBA and, now, the DOT have adopted a race-neutral standard that requires every applicant to tell their own story. This may seem like a burden, but it also gives business owners the power to define their own experience in their own words.
If you are preparing to reapply or renew your certification, take the time to write a clear and honest narrative. Be specific. Be factual. And remember, this is your opportunity to show the path you’ve walked and the strength it took to get here.
You can read more about the SBA’s 2023 change on our blog at ThinkNow.com/blog.
Gen Z, now between the ages of 13 and 28, has had very different life experiences than the Millennials that preceded them. Many of them were children during the financial fallout of the Great Recession and navigated adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic, all formative experiences that have shaped their values, beliefs around work, and their place in society. Since many of them are still charting their career paths, ThinkNow set out to understand how this generation perceives service in the U.S. armed forces.
Our latest study surveyed a nationally representative sample of 476 Gen Z adults (ages 18–24) to uncover what motivates or discourages them from serving, and to explore how these perspectives differ across cultural backgrounds.
While most of Gen Z was too young to have served during the U.S. wars in Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021), four out of five Gen Z respondents know someone who has served in the military, whether a family member or friend. This familiarity appears to be creating a foundation of respect and recognition for military service with half of Gen Z holding a favorable view of the U.S. military overall.
This familiarity and positive opinion may be responsible for roughly three in ten Gen Z adults saying they would consider joining the military. That is higher than was seen towards the end of the Middle Eastern wars. Ten years ago, Department of Defense tracking polls showed youth interest levels averaging between 13-16%. In comparison, today’s 30% represents a significant increase in openness to service among young Americans.
For those considering enlistment, the top motivators are career growth, education benefits, and skill development. Gen Z sees military service as both a path to purpose and to opportunity. They value discipline, teamwork, and leadership, but also want clear evidence that their commitment will lead to tangible outcomes in civilian life.
Interest varies across groups. Men lean toward the Marine Corps, while women favor the Air Force. Non-Hispanic Whites express the strongest overall favorability, while Hispanic and African American respondents are somewhat less likely to have close family ties to service. Recognizing these nuances allows for more authentic, culturally relevant communication.
Among those uncertain about joining, higher pay, stronger benefits, and guaranteed post-service employment stand out as the top motivators. These are practical, achievable levers that can further expand the pool of interested young adults.
Gen Z’s willingness to consider military service is a bright spot in a decade-long trend of declining youth engagement. Their 30% interest rate signals renewed openness and suggests that the right combination of purpose, opportunity, and security can attract a new generation of service-minded Americans. Understanding what drives Gen Z’s choices helps not only the military but any institution seeking to connect with a generation that values authenticity, balance, and progress.
The flu season is an annual reminder that personal health decisions often have broader consequences. New ThinkNow research on U.S. attitudes toward flu vaccination shows that while just over half of adults received the flu shot in 2024, fewer plan to do so in 2025. This trend is concerning, not only for individuals but for communities that rely on high vaccination coverage to reduce transmission.
Download the report here.
The survey, conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,500 adults, found:
The most common reasons for declining the flu shot are rooted in personal health perceptions: believing it is unnecessary, rarely getting sick, or having never had the flu. Concerns about side effects and doubts about effectiveness also remain.
Doctors and healthcare providers continue to be the most trusted influencers for flu shot decisions across all groups. Younger adults, particularly Millennials, also rely heavily on family, friends, and personal research. This suggests that messages about flu vaccination must be reinforced through both medical professionals and personal networks.
Getting a flu shot is not only a personal health decision but also a civic responsibility. The flu spreads easily, and one person’s illness can quickly become another person’s hospitalization. In fact, from 20,000 to 50,000 people die from flu-related respiratory illnesses in the U.S. each year. Choosing vaccination protects the vulnerable: infants too young for vaccination, older adults, and individuals with weakened immune systems.
Vaccination also reduces the burden on hospitals, keeps workplaces and schools safer, and contributes to a healthier and more productive society.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone 6 months and older get a flu vaccine every season. This guidance includes people who are healthy and those with chronic health conditions. Certain groups face a higher risk of flu-related complications and should prioritize vaccination:
The CDC also recommends that vaccination occur by the end of October each year, although getting the shot later in the season still provides valuable protection.
The ThinkNow findings underscore a troubling reality: intent to get the flu vaccine is declining, even as experts stress its importance. Vaccination is an act of personal protection, but it is also an act of community care. By getting the flu shot, individuals shield themselves from illness and help prevent spreading it to others.
The message is clear. Flu vaccination is about more than avoiding a week of discomfort. It is about protecting families, coworkers, neighbors, and communities. The flu shot is one of the simplest, most effective steps we can all take for the common good.
Download the report here.
What does feminism mean to U.S. women in 2025? The #MeToo movement is waning while toxic masculinity appears ascendant. Will the gains made by previous generations be lost? Our latest nationally representative survey of 739 women aged 18 and older uncovers a complex and often divided landscape. Views on feminism, gender equality, and social progress are shaped by significant generational, cultural, and racial differences. While the term “feminist” remains contentious, its ideals are supported by a vast majority of women.
Download the report here.
The first wave of feminism started in the mid-1800s with the suffrage movement. However, not all women supported it. Many believed that men and women had distinct but complementary roles: men in the public sphere (politics, business), women in the private sphere (home, family, church). The suffragists, however, were successful in gaining equal property rights, educational access, and most notably, the right to vote in 1920.
The term “feminist”, however, didn’t gain popularity until the second wave of feminism in the mid-60s when a new generation of women fought for reproductive freedom and workplace equality. Popular films and television shows of the era like Norma Rae and Mary Tyler-Moore celebrated strong, independent women, while songs like Aretha Franklin’s Respect and Helen Reddy’s I Am Woman became popular empowerment anthems. Around 30% of women identified as feminists at that time, but even then, the term was polarizing.
By the 1980s, during the Reagan era, feminism started facing a backlash. Movies like Fatal Attraction and sitcoms like Family Ties either demonized women or suggested that they return to more traditional roles. This trend continued into the 90s with conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh coining the “feminazi” label, which conflated feminism with extremism. Powerful women at the time like Hillary Clinton felt pressure to conform to traditional roles and, in Clinton’s case, change her last name from Rodham to Rodham-Clinton to just her husband’s name, Clinton.
The early 2000s saw the rise of conservative media personalities like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Laura Ingram, who promoted traditional gender roles and mocked feminist ideals. That changed in 2017, when the #MeToo movement and the Women’s March (a reaction to Trump’s first term) reenergized the conversation around reproductive rights, workplace harassment, and gender-based violence.
In 2025, under Trump’s second presidency, the pendulum appears to be swinging back toward cultural conservatism. Thus far, we have seen the following:
Today, American women are nearly evenly divided on the term “feminist”:
This topline, however, masks deeper generational and racial divides. Our research found that Asian women lead in self-identifying as feminists, but they also express the most uncertainty. Gen Z women are the least likely to reject the label, whereas Millennials are the least likely to adopt it.
These trends suggest a growing discomfort with ideological labels, even as support for feminist principles remains high.
Despite decades of activism, only 44% of women in the U.S. know that March 8th is International Women’s Day (IWD). This limited awareness may be tied to IWD’s roots in European socialist and labor movements, and unlike Mother’s Day or Valentine’s Day, IWD isn’t easily monetizable, so major U.S. retailers and media don’t generally promote it.
Some key facts from our study:
Our research found that most women define feminism as promoting gender equity, eliminating discrimination, and advancing equality. Gen Z women are especially likely to view feminism as fairness across genders. Yet despite broad agreement on its goals, fewer than 1 in 5 women believe society views feminism positively. Nearly half say it’s perceived negatively.
Other findings include the following:
Women identify the biggest obstacles to gender equality as:
When asked which areas need the most urgent attention, women pointed to:
The report breaks out those findings by ethnic and generational differences. With some issues like pay equity resonating most with Boomers at 78% vs. 49% of Gen Z, and others like stopping gender-based violence resonating with 61% of Latinas but only 39% of Black women. Despite these priorities, optimism about the future of gender equality remains muted. Only 43% of women report feeling optimistic. Optimism is highest among Asian women and Boomers, while Gen Z and Hispanic women are notably more skeptical.
While much work still needs to be done to achieve true gender equality, 43% of women are optimistic about improvement, while only 19% express pessimism. Support for gender equity is strong, but the feminist label remains polarizing. Younger and diverse populations, however, are picking up the mantle and pushing the conversation forward.
At ThinkNow, we believe in amplifying diverse voices to inform brands, policymakers, and advocates on where the conversation on gender equality is headed. Whether or not women embrace the label “feminist,” the values behind it, such as equality, justice, and dignity, remain widely shared. Those ideals matter, regardless of what we choose to call them.
Download the report here.
In 2000, the United States declared that measles had been officially eliminated as a contagious disease, as there had been no person-to-person transmissions in the previous twelve months. That feat was achieved due to the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine and high vaccination rates. However, as of May 16, 2025, there were over 718 reported cases of measles, including two deaths in West Texas and another 50 cases in New Mexico. Most measles cases in this recent outbreak are occurring in unvaccinated children between the ages of 5 and 17. This troubling trend prompted ThinkNow to conduct a nationally representative quantitative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults on attitudes and behaviors surrounding vaccination, and the results are concerning.
Download the report here.
Herd immunity against infectious diseases requires a 95% vaccination rate. Back in 2000, the vaccination rate was 90.5%, demonstrating that disease elimination is possible with slightly lower coverage. Our recent study, conducted in March and April of this year, found that 86% of parents have vaccinated or plan to vaccinate their children against illnesses like measles, polio, and chicken pox. That percentage may increase as more children enroll in school. Still, the widening gap between current levels and the herd-immunity threshold contributes to the size and scope of today’s outbreak.
Further complicating prevention efforts is the variability in vaccination rates, from 79.6% to 98.3%, across states and within communities. Gaines County, the epicenter of the current Texas outbreak, has an 82% vaccination rate, largely attributed to many Mennonite families in the area who opt out of childhood vaccinations. At a national level, our study found that aside from religious exemptions, parental age and race significantly influence vaccination decisions. While 12% of parents overall say they don’t plan to vaccinate their children, that number rises to 29% among African American parents and 17% among Gen Z parents.
The most cited reason for vaccine hesitancy is the belief that immunization is unnecessary. This perception is especially prevalent among Gen Z parents who opt out of vaccinations. Concerns about adverse reactions and misinformation about vaccine ingredients also play a significant role.
Key findings from vaccine-hesitant parents include:
These attitudes point to a clear need for better education and communication, particularly among younger parents and communities of color, about the role vaccines play in preventing serious illness.
While 61% of parents overall report confidence in the safety of childhood vaccines, only 39% of Gen Z parents say the same. Nearly one-third of Gen Z respondents say they’re neutral on the issue. In contrast, confidence among older generations is much higher, 70% among Gen X and 72% among Baby Boomers. These generational differences suggest a broader erosion of trust in public institutions and medical guidance among younger adults, an emerging challenge for public health leaders.
Physicians remain the most trusted source of information about vaccines, cited by 76% of respondents. However, social media and online influencers are increasingly shaping the views of younger and minority parents. Among African Americans who support vaccination, 30% say online sources have influenced them. Among Gen Z, while most still cite doctors as a top source, many also report being swayed by peers, influencers, and online content.
To improve vaccine uptake, public awareness campaigns must reach younger parents where they are—on social platforms—and reinforce science-based messages through trusted, culturally relevant voices.
One-third of parents who oppose childhood vaccination say nothing could change their minds. But not all are immovable:
These findings point to the potential power of community storytelling and consistent, transparent communication in shifting attitudes.
Seventy-one percent of parents believe vaccines should be required for public school attendance, regardless of exemptions. However, among Gen Z parents, support for mandates drops. Fifty-two percent believe vaccination should be entirely optional, compared to just 15% of Boomers. Still, many parents acknowledge the broader social benefit of vaccines. The idea that immunization protects not just one child but the entire community continues to resonate, even among those with reservations.
Our recent findings reveal a shifting landscape. While most U.S. parents continue to support childhood vaccinations, confidence is slipping, particularly among Gen Z and African American parents. Addressing this decline in trust will require more than data points. Listening, cultural understanding, and amplifying trusted voices within communities will be necessary to shift the conversation.
As we confront the re-emergence of preventable diseases, rebuilding vaccine confidence must be a top priority. Because when trust breaks down, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual and put us all at risk.
Download the report here.
Agencies like the CDC and USDA rely on government insights solutions. Discover what ThinkNow Government offers the public sector.