The Upcoming Republican Tax Bill

This is long, but the material is useful for lobbying at town halls, etc., and when writing to our congresscritters.

Ten Questions on House Republicans’ Upcoming Tax Bill

May 8, 2025

| By Chuck Marr, Samantha Jacoby and Kris Cox

As the House Ways and Means Committee prepares to mark up a major tax bill, it is important to step back and consider which priorities it will reflect — whether it will prioritize tax policies that help families meet basic needs, require corporations and the wealthy to pay a fairer share of tax, and strengthen the nation’s fiscal outlook to allow us to meet existing commitments and make high-value investments.

Numerous independent analyses have shown that the 2017 tax law, which the bill is expected to extend, was skewed to the rich, drove up deficits and debt, and failed to deliver on its economic promises.^[1] It also has proved unpopular with the public.^[2] The 2025 bill should be held to a much higher standard than the 2017 bill, given its poor record of achievement, the higher risks the country now faces due to higher levels of debt, and the more uncertain economic outlook.

President Trump’s extreme and chaotic tariff policies pose a major threat of recession and are already raising consumer prices.^[3] The President’s attacks on the rule of law, scientific and medical research, top universities and law firms, and the functioning of the federal government — including its ability to collect revenue and deliver core services — pose large additional economic risks, over both the short and long term.

Any forthcoming Ways and Means bill should respond to the current economic moment and the growing risks that families face: rising costs, increasing risks of job loss, and high uncertainty about their future financial stability. The bill also must be examined in connection with the other central pieces of the Republican economic agenda: massive cuts in health coverage, food assistance, and other forms of help for families and communities to partially offset the cost of the bill’s tax cuts.^[4]

The answers to the following ten questions will illuminate what House Republicans prioritized as they put together their signature tax bill.

Prioritizing Tax Policies That Help Families Meet Basic Needs

1. Do House Republicans block the President’s reckless global tariffs to protect their constituents and stop a potential recession?

The tariffs’ impact on consumers and the economy is already impossible to ignore. Importantly, the Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction not only over tax policy but also over Congress’ constitutional trade policy authority.^[5] Thus, the committee can and should respond to the President’s destructive tariff policy.

Unless they are stopped, tax increases due to the tariffs are likely to more than erase any forthcoming tax cuts for households in all income groups except the top 10 percent, whose incomes are above $317,000. (See Figure 1.) Moreover, while the 2017 tax cuts won’t expire until the end of this year, households and businesses are already feeling the impact of the tariffs on prices, supply chains, and business viability.^[6]

Tax Cuts For Households in the Bottom 90 Percent Would Be More Than Erased Under Trump's Destructive Tariff Policy, Low- and Middle-Income Households Bear Highest Burden — Figure 1

Soon after President Trump imposed the highest tariffs since the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s on more than 100 countries, a number of states and businesses filed lawsuits challenging his legal authority.^[7] Yet House Republicans, despite their constitutional responsibility over tariff policy and the obvious risks the tariffs pose to their constituents, have failed to act. Meanwhile, the tariffs and the frequent shifts in the Administration’s tariff policies are paralyzing businesses, raising costs on consumers, and sharply increasing the risk of recession, which could lead to a rise in unemployment and the number of people who need help to afford the basics, just as those supports are slated for cuts.

A major question for the committee markup is whether House Republicans will, in parallel with the tax bill, assert their constitutional trade policy authority to stop these destructive policies and protect the country from a potential self-inflicted recession.

Furthermore, as Figure 1 shows, these historic tariffs represent major tax increases on households with low or moderate incomes.^[8] Given that extending the 2017 tax law would give the biggest benefits to high-income households, it will be important to see if Republicans modify the upcoming bill to reflect the current economic situation, including through measures discussed below.

2. Do House Republicans extend enhanced premium tax credits for marketplace health coverage to protect millions of people, including many small business owners, from sharp premium increases?

While the Ways and Means bill is expected to extend many other expiring tax provisions, it may not extend the premium tax credit enhancements, which are critical to making health coverage in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace more affordable.

Failing to extend them would drive up health care premiums by an average of 79 percent for over 20 million people, including 3 million small business owners.^[9] (Figure 2 shows the average premium increases nationally for a family of four at different income levels; in some states the increases would be far higher.)^[10] Roughly 4 million people would then be expected to lose their health insurance as its cost rose to unaffordable levels.^[11] As a result, they would be more likely to forgo necessary care or to incur medical debt.

Families Would Face High Premium Increases if Tax Credit Enhancements Expired — Figure 2

3. Do House Republicans expand the Child Tax Credit for children in working families who get less than the full credit, whom 169 House Republicans voted to help last year?

Under the Child Tax Credit now in place, 17 million children receive less than the full credit, or none at all, because their families’ earnings are too low; the large majority of these children live in families with earnings.^[12] Last year, Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith negotiated and championed legislation to expand the credit for the vast majority of these children. The bill, which passed the House, would have corrected many (but not all) key flaws in the credit’s design.^[13]

First, the bill would have improved how the credit phases in with earnings. As it stands now, higher-income families get a $2,000 credit for each child, but because of the way the phase-in works for low-income families, many families with two or three children receive roughly the same total credit as a family with one child at the same earnings level. Not allowing lower-income families to claim the credit on a per-child basis harms the roughly three-quarters of children in lower-income families who live in a family with more than one child.

Second, the bill would have treated families with low or moderate incomes the same as higher-income families when it comes to the maximum credit they can receive. Currently, these families are restricted to a smaller maximum credit. The lower maximum credit for families who don’t owe income taxes means that when they are able to increase their earnings, they often receive no additional Child Tax Credit, as they remain stuck at the lower maximum credit. This is seemingly at odds with Republicans’ rhetorical focus on increasing returns to work.

If Republicans simply increase the $2,000 maximum credit, or index it for inflation, not one of the 17 million children or their families would benefit from the change. The children who wouldn’t benefit include an estimated 650,000 children in veterans’ families, as well as millions of children whose parents work important jobs for low pay, such as truck drivers, cooks and waiters, nursing assistants, home health aides, construction workers, cashiers, and others. These children should be the top priority, not the lowest.

Some prior Republican proposals to expand the Child Tax Credit would offset the cost by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for families with children and eliminating the head-of-household filing status for single parents.^[14] In effect, this would increase income support for single parents with one hand while taking away part or all of that added support with the other. The Ways and Means bill should boost the incomes of single parents, an economically precarious group — not take away support.

4. Do House Republicans prevent low-paid working adults not raising children in their homes from being taxed into poverty?

More than 6 million working adults aged 19 and older who aren’t raising children at home will be taxed into, or deeper into, poverty by federal income and payroll taxes in 2026 if House Republicans do not improve the very limited EITC for this group.^[15]

Republicans should increase the paltry size of their EITC, expand the income range for people to qualify, and expand the age range (currently 25-64) to include anyone aged 19 or older. This would help young adults entering the workforce, who currently do not qualify for any EITC, and adults aged 65 and over, many of whom continue to work but aren’t eligible for any EITC. And it would provide a larger credit for currently eligible adults aged 25 to 64.

These changes would also be consistent with the President’s attention during the campaign to the economic circumstances of young men, especially those who don’t go to college.

5. Do House Republicans protect energy tax credits that help families lower their utility bills and create economic opportunities for struggling communities?

Tax credits for investments in clean, affordable energy have spurred tremendous growth in the solar, wind, and geothermal energy industries, and they are bringing new economic opportunities to areas of the country facing underinvestment and hardship, including many rural areas.^[16] But House Republicans are reportedly considering large cuts to energy tax credits, which risks upending this progress.^[17]

Repealing these credits would result in higher utility bills for households and businesses (increases of 7 percent and 10 percent, respectively)^[18] at a time when consumers already face higher costs from the President’s tariffs. Repeal could also add up to $49 billion in annual health care costs and lost productivity.^[19]

Requiring Corporations and Wealthy Households to Pay a Fairer Share of Tax

6. Do House Republicans end costly tax cuts targeted to high-income households?

Extending the expiring individual income and estate tax provisions of the 2017 law would benefit households with considerable wealth and high incomes far more than households with low or moderate incomes. Roughly half the cost of extending the expiring tax cuts would flow to households with incomes in the top 5 percent (those with incomes over around $320,000).^[20]

This tilt to the top reflects several costly provisions that primarily benefit the most well-off:

Lower top rate. The 2017 law cut the top individual income tax rate, which now applies to taxable incomes over roughly $730,000 for married couples, from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. Some House Republicans have reportedly considered including a higher top rate in their bill — such as 40 percent for people with taxable incomes over $1 million — but President Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have both rejected the idea.^[21]Allowing the top rate to revert to 39.6 percent while extending all of the 2017 law’s other expiring provisions would still give households in the top 1 percent a $40,000 average annual tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center.^[22] That’s because most high-income households receive large tax cuts from the law’s other provisions, like the pass-through deduction (see below), and also benefit from the law’s rate cuts that apply to the lower tax brackets. Still, even this modest change would be a welcome departure from the failed “trickle-down” approach to tax policy.
Pass-through deduction. The 2017 law adopted a special 20 percent deduction for certain income that owners of pass-through businesses (partnerships, S corporations, and sole proprietorships) report on their individual tax returns. Over half of the benefits go to 200,000 business owners with incomes over $1 million, who now face a lower top rate (29.6 percent) than their employees (37 percent).^[23] Research finds the deduction had no trickle-down benefits for workers’ wages or business investment.^[24]At a minimum, Republicans can follow through on their rhetorical support for small business owners by letting the deduction expire for millionaires, which would reduce the deduction’s cost by over $350 billion from 2025-2034, and instead extending enhanced premium tax credits that help 3 million business owners (see above) for a somewhat lower cost.^[25]
Tax break for large estates. The 2017 law doubled the estate tax exemption to $22 million per couple and indexed it for inflation going forward; today a couple can pass on an estate worth up to $28 million tax free. Extending this generous exemption amounts to a $5.7 million tax cut for the wealthiest 1 in 1,000 estates, whose value consists largely of unrealized capital gains income that has never been taxed.House Republicans may double down on this costly estate tax break, with some even calling for permanently repealing the estate tax altogether.^[26] Providing tax breaks to multi-million-dollar estates would be especially egregious given that Republicans also appear poised to steeply cut vital health care and food assistance, while the President’s sweeping tariffs will cost families with low or moderate incomes hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year and drive up the likelihood of a recession.

7. Do House Republicans revisit the 2017 law’s permanent and steep cut in the corporate tax rate?

The centerpiece of the 2017 law was a deep, permanent cut in the corporate tax rate — from 35 percent to 21 percent — that cost $1.3 trillion from 2018-2027 and is tilted even more heavily toward wealthy people than the expiring individual tax cuts.^[27] (See Figure 3.) Rigorous research shows that the corporate rate cut did not produce the promised economic benefits: a study by economists from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Federal Reserve Board found that workers in the bottom 90th percentile of their firm’s income scale saw no change in earnings from the rate cut.^[28]

Rather than revisit this costly, skewed rate cut, which was even deeper than corporate lobbyists had expected to achieve in the 2017 law,^[29] House Republicans are likely to go in the opposite direction: reverse scheduled business tax increases that Congress added to the 2017 law to partially offset the cost of the corporate rate cut. Reversing these increases without a corresponding increase in the corporate rate would amount to hundreds of billions in additional tax cuts for corporations.^[30]

8. Do House Republicans reject additional unwise tax cuts?

The House-passed budget resolution calls for $4.5 trillion of tax cuts over fiscal years 2025-2034, which leaves room for $1.2 trillion in additional tax cuts on top of extending the 2017 individual and estate tax cuts. In addition to the likely business tax cuts discussed above, House Republicans may include some costly new tax cuts that disproportionately benefit high-income households.

Notably, Republicans appear poised to weaken the 2017 law’s $10,000 cap on deductions for state and local taxes (SALT). The SALT cap has received outsized public attention, potentially creating the mistaken impression that the affected filers fared relatively poorly under the 2017 law. Even with the SALT cap, the 2017 law delivered the biggest average tax cut, measured as a share of pre-tax income, to households with incomes in the 95-99th percentiles, a group making roughly between $400,000 and $1 million.

These households would also be the biggest winners from most proposals to expand the SALT cap. For example, increasing the cap to $25,000 for married couples would mean an additional $5,550 to high-income couples, or 12 times as much as households with incomes in the bottom 60 percent would receive from extending the entire 2017 law.

The Ways and Means bill also will likely include other tax cuts President Trump proposed during the campaign, such as exempting Social Security income and tips from income taxes. But these policies would do little for households with low incomes and would add significantly to the cost.

For example, repealing the taxation of Social Security benefits would weaken the financing of Social Security and Medicare and make the Social Security system less progressive.^[31] About half of Social Security beneficiaries already pay no tax on their benefits, primarily because their incomes fall below the specified thresholds. Similar proposals, like retaining the tax on benefits but fully offsetting it with an equal income tax credit, would still dig a large and growing hole in the federal budget (costing well over $1 trillion over ten years) without benefiting low-income seniors.^[32]

The President’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips would help only a small minority of low-paid workers and barely add to the tax cuts going to families with low and moderate incomes.^[33] It also could open up significant tax gaming opportunities as people with high incomes seek to reclassify their income as tips to avoid tax.

Strengthening the Fiscal Outlook to Meet Existing Commitments and Make High-Value Investments

9. Do House Republicans offset the cost of their tax cuts with sound revenue proposals?

Despite rising needs due to the aging of the baby boom generation and underinvestment in public services and the economy, policymakers have enacted tax cuts in the past two decades that have eroded the revenue base.^[34] This has undermined investments and driven up deficits and debt, increasing future risks to the economy.

Instead of raising revenues, many congressional Republicans have used the increase in debt to push for deep cuts in Medicaid and SNAP even as they seek to extend costly tax cuts and add a trillion dollars or more in new cuts on top.

Republicans could cut the cost of extending the 2017 law by more than half, from $4.2 trillion to $1.8 trillion over 2026-2035, by reversing the tax cuts for anyone with income above $400,000.^[35] Moreover, sound tax policies are readily available for Republicans to pay for the tax cuts they want to extend.^[36]

10. Do House Republicans avoid gimmicks and timing shifts that prior tax bills (such as the 2017 law) have used to hide their true cost?

The 2017 law relied on budget tricks such as making many tax cuts temporary or having tax increases phase in later to make its tax cuts appear less costly, which allowed Republican lawmakers to squeeze in a larger corporate rate cut. They may do so again this year, despite authorizing an even more costly bill than the original 2017 law.

For example, House Republicans are reportedly considering limiting any new tax cuts — that is, those other than extensions of the 2017 law, such as eliminating tax on tips — to just four years.^[37] This would lower the bill’s official cost relative to permanent new tax cuts but would mask the true cost of those provisions, because lawmakers could be expected to push for their extension later, likely without offsetting the cost. An even more egregious gimmick would be for House Republicans to copy Senate Republicans in adopting a “current policy” baseline, where the expiring tax cuts are simply assumed to continue after 2025 and thus that they would have zero cost.^[38]

Copy link

Topics:

Federal Tax, Personal Taxes, Business Taxes, Tax Credits for Individuals and Families

PDF of this report (12 pp.)

Policy Basics
Federal Tax

End Notes

^[1] Chuck Marr, Samantha Jacoby, and George Fenton, “The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises,” CBPP, updated June 13, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver; Gbenga Ajilore, “The 2017 Tax Law Did Not Boost the Economy,” CBPP, April 8, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-2017-tax-law-did-not-boost-the-economy.

^[2] Navigator Research, November 2019, https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Navigator-Taxes-Final-2.pdf; Hart Research, “Voters Overwhelmingly Oppose Extending Tax Cuts for Wealthy Individuals and Corporations,” February 24, 2025, https://www.familiesoverbillionaires.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ME-14964-Families-Over-Billionaires-02-24-25.pdf.

^[3] Alberto Cavallo, Paola Llamas, and Franco Vazuez, “Tracking the Short-Run Price Impact of U.S. Tariffs,” May 5, 2025, https://pricinglab-rw7gfm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/tariffs/TrackingTariffs_Cavallo_Llamas_Vazquez.pdf

^[4] Brendan Duke and Gbenga Ajilore, “Republican Agenda’s ‘Triple Threat’ to Low- and Moderate-Income Family Well-Being,” CBPP, April 17, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/republican-agendas-triple-threat-to-low-and-moderate-income-family-well-being.

^[5] The House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over “Revenue measures generally,” including tariffs. See Clause 1(t)(3) of House Rule X. Other committees, including the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have jurisdiction over export controls.

^[6] Cavallo, Llamas, and Vazuez; Paul Berger, “Cargo Shipments from China to U.S. Slide Toward a Standstill,” Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2025, https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/cargo-shipments-from-china-to-the-u-s-dwindle-9877596a.

^[7] “Complaint: Three-Judge Court Requested,” State of Oregon et al., v. Trump et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00077-N/A, April 23, 2025, https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Multistate-Tariffs-0077-PLD-Complaint-4.23.25.pdf; “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,” State of California et al. v. Trump et al., Case 3:25-cv-03372, April 16, 2025, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FILE_8502.pdf; “Complaint,” V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al. v. Trump et al., Case No. 25-00066, April 14, 2025, https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/002-VOS-Selections-v.-Trump-Compl-2025.04.14-1.pdf.

^[8] Duke and Ajilore.

^[9] Jared Ortaliza et al., “Inflation Reduction Act Health Insurance Subsidies: What is Their Impact and What Would Happen if They Expire?” KFF, July 26, 2024, https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/inflation-reduction-act-health-insurance-subsidies-what-is-their-impact-and-what-would-happen-if-they-expire/; Treasury Department, “U.S. Department of the Treasury Releases New Data Showing 3.3 Million Small Business Owners and Self-Employed Workers Covered by Affordable Care Act Marketplaces in 2022,” September 25, 2024, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2608.

^[10] Gideon Lukens and Elizabeth Zhang, “Premium Tax Credit Improvements Must Be Extended to Prevent Steep Rise in Health Care Costs,” CBPP, November 14, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/premium-tax-credit-improvements-must-be-extended-to-prevent-steep-rise-in-health.

^[11] Both the Urban Institute and the Congressional Budget Office estimate around 4 million people becoming uninsured. See Jessica Banthin et al., “Who Benefits from Enhanced Premium Tax Credits in the Marketplace?” Urban Institute, June 17, 2024, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/who-benefits-enhanced-premium-tax-credits-marketplace; Congressional Budget Office, letter from Phillip L. Swagel to Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Neal, Senator Shaheen, and Congresswoman Underwood, December 5, 2024, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-12/59230-ARPA.pdf.

^[12] Kris Cox and Stephanie Hingtgen, “Policymakers Should Expand the Child Tax Credit for the 17 Million Children Currently Left Out of the Full Credit,” CBPP, February 5, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/policymakers-should-expand-the-child-tax-credit-for-the-17-million-children-currently-left-out.

^[13] For details on the legislation, see Kris Cox et al., “About 16 Million Children in Low-Income Families Would Gain in First Year of Bipartisan Child Tax Credit Expansion,” CBPP, updated January 22, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/about-16-million-children-in-low-income-families-would-gain-in-first-year-of.

^[14] Rep. Blake Moore, Family First Act, H. R. 353, January 13, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/353/text/ih; Chuck Marr et al., “Romney Child Tax Credit Proposal Is Step Forward But Falls Short, Targets Low-Income Families to Pay for It,” CBPP, updated July 6, 2022, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/romney-child-tax-credit-proposal-is-step-forward-but-falls-short-targets-low.

^[15] Chuck Marr et al., “What a Better Tax Bill Would Look Like,” CBPP, April 23, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/what-a-better-tax-bill-would-look-like.

^[16] U.S. Department of Energy, “How Tax Credits Are Driving Clean Energy Growth Two Years into Inflation Reduction Act,” August 16, 2024, https://www.energy.gov/policy/articles/how-tax-credits-are-driving-clean-energy-growth-two-years-inflation-reduction-act.

^[17] Kelsey Brugger and Andres Picon, “Republicans Scramble on Tax Credits, Climate Cuts,” E&E News, May 2, 2025, https://www.eenews.net/articles/republicans-scramble-on-tax-credits-climate-cuts/.

^[18] Sugandha Taludhar et al., “Electricity Price Impacts of Technology-Neutral Tax Incentives With Incremental Electricity Demand from Data Centers,” NERA, February 10, 2025, https://cebuyers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CEBA_Electricity-Price-Impacts-of-Technology-Neutral-Tax-Incentives-With-Incremental-Electricity-Demand-From-Data-Centers_February-2025.pdf.

^[19] Jeremy Proville, “The Economic Case for Preserving Clean Energy Tax Incentives,” Environmental Defense Fund, May 1, 2025, https://blogs.edf.org/markets/2025/05/01/the-economic-case-for-preserving-clean-energy-tax-incentives/.

^[20] Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, “The Cost and Distribution of Extending Expiring Provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017,” January 10, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/The-Cost-and-Distribution-of-Extending-Expiring-Provisions-of-TCJA-01102025.pdf.

^[21] Ed Kilgore, “Trump Slams Door on Higher Tax Rate for the Rich,” New York Magazine, April 24, 2025, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-slams-door-on-higher-tax-rate-for-the-rich.html.

^[22] Tax Policy Center, “T25-0023: Retain Current Law Top Individual Income Tax Rate of 39.6 Percent, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by ECI Percentile, 2026,” February 25, 2025, https://taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/t25-0023-retain-current-law-top-individual-income-tax-rate-396-percent-distribution.

^[23] Joint Committee on Taxation, “Tables Related to the Federal Tax System as in Effect 2017 through 2026,” JCX-32r-18, April 24, 2018, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2018/jcx-32r-18/.

^[24] Lucas Goodman et al., “How Do Business Owners Respond to a Tax Cut? Examining the 199A Deduction for Pass-through Firms,” NBER Working Paper 28680, revised January 2024, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28680/w28680.pdf.

^[25] Samantha Jacoby, “Congress Should End Pass-Through Tax Break for Millionaire Business Owners, Extend Tax Credit That Helps Small Businesses Buy Health Coverage,” CBPP, March 28, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/congress-should-end-pass-through-tax-break-for-millionaire-business-owners-extend-tax-credit.

^[26] Chuck Marr, “Yet Another Estate Tax Cut on Massive Inheritances Is a Poor Choice,” CBPP, March 11, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/yet-another-estate-tax-cut-on-massive-inheritances-is-a-poor-choice.

^[27] CBO, “The Distribution of Household Income, 2018,” August 4, 2021, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57061.

^[28] Patrick J. Kennedy et al., “The Efficiency-Equity Tradeoff of the Corporate Income Tax: Evidence from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” March 21, 2024, https://patrick-kennedy.github.io/files/TCJA_KDLM_2024.pdf.

^[29] Prior to the debate around the 2017 tax law, business groups supported a 25 percent corporate tax rate — in line with the OECD average. See Laura Tyson, “Modernizing Corporate Taxation,” Alliance for Competitive Taxation, June 26, 2013, https://actontaxreform.com/media-center/archived-news/posts/modernizing-corporate-taxation/.

^[30] Chuck Marr and Samantha Jacoby, “Policymakers Should Focus on the True Cost of an Item on Corporate Lobby’s Tax Break Wish List,” CBPP, November 7, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/policymakers-should-focus-on-the-true-cost-of-an-item-on-corporate-lobbys-tax-break-wish-list; Chuck Marr and Samantha Jacoby, “Corporate Lobby’s New Math Doesn’t Add Up for Kids,” CBPP, December 8, 2022, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/corporate-lobbys-new-math-doesnt-add-up-for-kids.

^[31] Paul Van de Water, “Eliminating Taxation of Social Security Benefits Would Be Unwise,” CBPP, February 27, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/eliminating-taxation-of-social-security-benefits-would-be-unwise/.

^[32] Penn Wharton Budget Model, “Eliminating Income Taxes on Social Security Benefits,” February 10, 2025, https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/2/10/eliminating-income-taxes-on-social-security-benefits.

^[33] Chuck Marr, 10:50 a.m., March 12, 2025, https://x.com/ChuckCBPP/status/1899835459598983416.

^[34] Richard Kogan et al., “More Revenue Is Required to Meet the Nation’s Commitments, Needs, and Challenges,” CBPP, June 17, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/more-revenue-is-required-to-meet-the-nations-commitments-needs-and.

^[35] Treasury, “The Cost and Distribution of Extending Expiring Provisions.” Treasury’s analysis reflects the Biden Administration’s pledge not to raise taxes for people making up to $400,000 a year. Its estimates of reversing the tax cuts for people with incomes above $400,000 include certain tax changes that would modestly increase tax rates for households in the top 1 percent (those with incomes over $743,247) relative to allowing all the tax cuts to fully expire. For example, the 2017 tax law’s revenue-raising provisions are assumed to be extended for all income levels rather than being allowed to expire.

^[36] Chuck Marr and Samantha Jacoby, “Principles for the 2025 Tax Debate: End High-Income Tax Cuts, Raise Revenues to Finance Any Extensions or New Investments,” CBPP, September 25, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/principles-for-the-2025-tax-debate-end-high-income-tax-cuts-raise-revenues-to.

^[37] Nicholas Ballasy, “GOP leaders mull 4-year sunset provisions for Trump tax benefits in reconciliation bill,” Just the News, April 27, 2025, https://justthenews.com/government/congress/gop-leaders-mull-4-year-sunset-provisions-trump-tax-benefits-reconciliation.

^[38] Sharon Parrott, “New Budget Resolution Is Upside Down, Hurting Families the President Pledged to Serve to Shower Tax Cuts on the Wealthy and Powerful,” CBPP, April 2, 2025, https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/new-budget-resolution-is-upside-down-hurting-families-the-president-pledged-to.

Trump & Deportations: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

John Oliver discusses the recent deportations by the Trump administration, the conditions in the facility people are being sent to abroad, and why even Henry Winkler could be in danger of being expelled from the U.S. Yeah, even national treasure Henry Winkler.

Support for the LGBTQ+ in the tRump hate era.

Salt Lake City Adopts Rainbow City Flag To Evade New State Ban On Pride Flags At Public Buildings [VIDEO]

#BREAKING: On the eve of the state's flag ban, @slcmayor is proposing the @slcCouncil adopt three new city flags – each in Pride, transgender, and Juneteenth colors with the city's Sego Lily. They're expected to be adopted at their meeting tonight. @abc4utah pic.twitter.com/zAWlJaOPm4
— Lindsay Aerts (@LindsayOnAir) May 6, 2025

Mayor @slcmayor says this is the way the city can "abide" by the law, and that the flags are meant to include, not divide. She says retribution is always possible and she laughed when I asked whether this was the "ultimate troll" of the Utah legislature. pic.twitter.com/dKo6kkB4Mi
— Lindsay Aerts (@LindsayOnAir) May 7, 2025

Yes the flag ban bill was performative culture war nonsense. Doesn’t mean Salt Lake City was going to take it lying down. Private buildings across downtown raised their own flags today – including mine. pic.twitter.com/rNNrGuIuYD
— Tom Merrill (@SaltLakeTom) May 7, 2025

Our new official flags. These flags are allowed by the law, that our state leaders spent hours debating. Thank you for allowing us to make those official city flags that can be flown at anytime highlighting the contributions of many. These flags won’t be kept in any closet! pic.twitter.com/YhdiR4uGAF
— Alejandro Puy -SLC D2 (@AlePuy_SLC) May 7, 2025

Boise Adopts Rainbow Flag As Official City Flag To Evade New State Ban On Pride Flag At Govt Buildings [VIDEO]

They’re doing it again, they are so messed up and hurtful. They are destroying everything they touch Part1

Trump Suggests He Can Defy The US Constitution

DOJ Unit To Focus On “Voter Fraud” Not Voting Rights

In November, Dhillon appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast to recount “all the crimes committed by Kamala Harris.”

The DOJ is quietly gutting its voting rights department. They are reassigning top staff, dropping active cases, and have rewritten their mission to focus on “voter fraud” instead of voter suppression.https://t.co/D218kQRPg0
— Democracy Docket (@DemocracyDocket) May 1, 2025

Trump Admin Rehires Prominent “Plandemic” Covidiot

Trump Defends Cost Of Birthday Parade: “It’s Peanuts”

Other estimates have placed the cost of the parade at twice the $45 million cited by NBC.

Looks like Trump’s big military parade IS going ahead

'We have the greatest military in the world'

Price tag apparently 'peanuts compared to value of doing it' https://t.co/1kcQuS1WjA pic.twitter.com/YmSi2s2LLS
— RT (@RT_com) May 4, 2025

Trump On US Invading Canada: “It Could Happen”

Trump spurns third-term talk: "Not something I'm looking to do" https://t.co/akY7Woq1lb
— Axios (@axios) May 4, 2025

WH Gives Trump Evil Sith Lightsaber In Star Wars Day Message To “Radical Left Lunatics” Who Love MS-13

Ford Motor: Tariffs Will Cost Us $1.5 Billion This Year

Trump’s tariffs aren’t just wrecking the economy and fueling inflation—they’re also failing at their one supposed goal: helping American manufacturing. pic.twitter.com/GgrkzXWKv9
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 6, 2025

FAA Orders Ground Delay For Newark Airport Amid Reports That Controllers Lost Contact With Aircraft

A system-wide outage last Monday caused air traffic controllers to lose the ability to see, hear or talk to all arriving and departing aircraft for 60 to 90 seconds at Newark Liberty Airport. @MattRiversABC reports. https://t.co/UWI0blu3tY pic.twitter.com/W2KpuEMfMX
— Good Morning America (@GMA) May 6, 2025

House GOP Battles Over Major Cuts To Food Stamps

Republicans’ reconciliation bill would gut SNAP & increase food insecurity in the #MA7 & nationwide.

I asked my GOP colleagues if any of them are willing to vote NO and make sure that children, people with disabilities, & veterans don’t go hungry.

Their silence was deafening. pic.twitter.com/gvdkFbcyml
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) May 1, 2025

Supreme Court Allows Trans Military Ban To Take Effect

GOP House Reps Blast MTG’s “Gulf Of America” Bill

New: House leaders’ plans to hold vote on Gulf of America Act is causing heartburn with some GOP lawmakers

Don Bacon said it “seems sophomoric”

Another R said, “125 other EOs, this is the one we pick”

At least 3 spoke up in whip team mtg Monday, Im told https://t.co/99sHp0IpQl
— Liz Elkind (@liz_elkind) May 6, 2025

Top Pentagon Nominee To Senators: Sorry About All Those Times I Called Obama “Muslim Terrorist Leader”

GOP Rep: First Person Sent To Alcatraz Should Be Fauci

Second $67 Million US Fighter Jet Falls Into Ocean

BREAKING: Another $70 million F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet from the USS Harry S. Truman has been lost in the Red Sea—the second jet from the carrier lost in just over a week.
-CNN pic.twitter.com/s5QrPYPo7O
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 7, 2025

Another Navy fighter jet sank to the bottom of the Red Sea on Tuesday following the second such mishap aboard the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier in just over a week, a U.S. official told ABC News.

Read more: https://t.co/xMJFr9zsSG pic.twitter.com/20PlaIcAKm
— ABC News (@ABC) May 7, 2025

DeSantis Signs Fluoride Ban, Attacks Fauci And Vax

GOP Rep Thinks San Diego Borders Gulf Of Mexico

Hageman: I think another reason we should change the name to The Gulf of America is for over 40 years, Mexico has been dumping raw sewage in the area near San Diego… That’s another reason we need to retake and claim ownership of this area pic.twitter.com/7VKXsYBHVH
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2025

WSJ: US Intel Agencies Ordered To Spy On Greenland

NEW: The U.S. is ramping up its intelligence-gathering efforts in Greenland, deploying its spy apparatus to support Donald Trump’s campaign to take control of the island.
-WSJ

This. Is. Insane. pic.twitter.com/M5dk7T8KCH
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) May 6, 2025

ICE Raids Restaurant Owned By CBS Anchor’s Husband

ICE Agents Raid Posh Washington DC Restaurants

US Will Now Refer To Persian Gulf As “Gulf Of Arabia”

764,000 Have Lost Money On Trump’s Grift Coin Scam

Official City Emblems Aren’t Flags! 🏳‍🌈

Salt Lake City and Boise make pride flags official city emblems, skirting flag ban laws

By HANNAH SCHOENBAUM and REBECCA BOONE Updated 6:57 PM CDT, May 7, 2025

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Democratic controlled cities of Salt Lake City and Boise adopted new city flags this week showing support for LGBTQ+ people in defiance of their states’ Republican-controlled Legislatures, which have banned traditional rainbow pride flags at schools and government buildings.

The newly adopted city flags are displayed at the Salt Lake City and County building showing support for LGBTQ+ in defiance of their state’s Republican controlled Legislature, Wednesday, May 7, 2025, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Melissa Majchrzak)

Utah’s capital of Salt Lake City created new flag designs while Boise, the capital of Idaho, made the traditional pride flag one of its official city flags. The move in Utah came hours before a ban on unsanctioned flag displays took effect Wednesday.

The cities’ mayors spoke Tuesday morning to discuss their individual plans and offer each other support, said Andrew Wittenberg, a spokesperson for Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s office.

Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall smiles as she attends the IOC session at the 2024 Summer Olympics, July 24, 2024, in Paris, France. (AP Photo/David Goldman) — *Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall smiles as she attends the IOC session in Paris, July 24, 2024. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File*)

Lauren McLean, Mayor, City of Boise listens during a news conference at the Linen Building in Boise, Idaho, June 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Kyle Green, file) — *Mayor Lauren McLean listens during a news conference at the Linen Building in Boise, Idaho, June 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Kyle Green, File)*

(snip-MORE, go see it!)

Transgender people’s lives at risk of being made ‘unliveable’, says Nicola Sturgeon

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/06/transgender-peoples-lives-at-risk-of-being-made-unliveable-says-nicola-sturgeon

Former Scottish first minister expresses concern about interim advice from EHRC

The final years of Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership were dominated by debate around the passing of her gender recognition legislation. Photograph: Stuart Wallace/Rex/Shutterstock

The lives of transgender people in the UK are at risk of being made “unliveable”, Nicola Sturgeon has said in her first public comments about the supreme court ruling on the legal definition of a woman, which was prompted by legislation she oversaw in the Scottish parliament.

The UK supreme court ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex. This was the conclusion of a long-running court action by the gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, who objected to a law passed at Holyrood aimed at improving women’s representation on public boards being extended to transgender women.

Sturgeon said the supreme court’s ruling – “by very definition … the law of the land” – could not be questioned but expressed profound concerns about interim advice published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as.

“The question for me, and I think for a lot of people, is how that is now translated into practice; can that be done in a way that, of course, protects women, but also allows trans people to live their lives with dignity and in a safe and accepted way.

“I would be very concerned if that interim guidance became the final guidance and I hope that is not the case because I think that potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable.

“It certainly doesn’t make a single woman any safer to do that because the threat to women comes from predatory and abusive men.”

The former first minister and SNP leader added that it was not inevitable that the judgment would make the lives of transgender people “impossibly difficult”, but there was a danger that certain interpretations could put transgender rights at risk.

“If that is the case, then yes, it would be my view that the law as it stands needs to be looked at,” she told reporters at the Scottish parliament on Tuesday.

The Scottish media and prominent gender critical campaigners have been calling on Sturgeon to respond since the ruling, which prompted jubilation among gender critical activists and sent shock waves through the trans community.

Sturgeon has been a staunch advocate of transgender rights, and the final years of her premiership were dominated by the increasingly toxic and polarised debate around the passing of her flagship gender recognition reforms in late 2022.

The bill, which was passed with cross-party support at Holyrood, made it easier and less intrusive for individuals to legally change their gender, extending the new system of self-identification to 16- and 17-year-olds for the first time. But it was immediately blocked by the Rishi Sunak’s UK government as cutting across the UK-wide Equality Act.

After this unprecedented veto, Sturgeon accused some opponents of the bill of using women’s rights as a “cloak of acceptability to cover up what is transphobia”, telling the NewsAgents podcast that some critics of the legislation were also “deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well”.

On Tuesday Sturgeon rejected the suggestion made by many of her critics that she owed them an apology after the ruling.

“I fundamentally, and respectfully, disagree,” she said. “I recognise the different views on this, I’ve always recognised the different views on this, but I think its important that respect runs in both directions.”

But co-director of For Women Scotland, Susan Smith, said Sturgeon’s claim that life would be made “unliveable” was “frankly wrong and quite disturbing”. Smith told BBC Scotland News that single-sex spaces were needed to provide women with “privacy, dignity, safety at time when they’re vulnerable”.

What Trump Said Off-Air: NBC Cuts Reveal Key Claims on Tariffs, Bezos, and Recession

https://meidasnews.com/news/what-trump-said-off-air-nbc-cuts-reveal-key-claims-on-tariffs-bezos-and-recession

Read what wasn’t aired

J.D. Wolf

2 days ago

In the full, unedited version of Donald Trump’s recent Meet the Press interview with Kristen Welker—released online by NBC but not aired in full during the broadcast—Trump made several striking remarks that were omitted from the televised segment.

Trump on Meet the Press

Meet the Press

One such moment came when Trump claimed credit for getting Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to remove tariff impact notices from the platform. “I asked him about it and he said I don’t want to do that and he took it off immediately,” Trump said, calling Bezos “a very nice guy” and suggesting a friendly relationship between the two.

Welker: What did you say to Jeff Bezos?

Trump: He’s just a very nice guy. We have a relationship. I asked him about it and he said I don’t want to do that and he took it off immediately. pic.twitter.com/lE4xtTC4lo
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2025

The removal of such notices undermines public transparency by severing the direct link between rising consumer prices and Trump’s tariff policies.

Other remarks that were cut from the interview that aired included Trump’s insistence that prices for eggs “were down 87%” under his administration, citing White House Easter egg hunts as anecdotal proof, despite Welker reminding him the price spike was caused by a bird flu outbreak.

Trump: Eggs.. you were the one who asked me. It was the first week. I didn’t even know what you were talking about. Egg prices were so high you couldn’t buy eggs. They didn’t have any eggs.. We had Easter at the WH and we had thousands of eggs and they were down 87%.

Welker:… pic.twitter.com/volZix9uRr
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2025

Trump also returned to debunked claims about the 2020 election, asserting the results were “rigged” and insisting he “won a lot of court cases” despite losing the vast majority.

Trump: The election was rigged…

Welker: I don’t want to look back. You took your case to court about your allegations..

Trump: There’s no question. The election was rigged. The facts are in and it’s still being litigated.

Welker: You did take your case to court more than 60… pic.twitter.com/2I1vycdLgL
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2025

He went further to suggest that “China is eating the tariffs” rather than U.S. consumers or businesses. That is not the reality.

Trump: What people don’t understand is.. the country eats the tariff, the company eats the tariff and it’s not passed along at all… China is eating the tariffs pic.twitter.com/oC30AQokR0
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2025

Trump also downplayed recession concerns by saying, “anything can happen,” demonstrating a nonchalant attitude toward a severe economic downturn .

Welker: Are you worried about a recession?

Trump: No..

Welker: Do you think it could happen?

Trump: Anything can happen.. pic.twitter.com/idCz3JGt3z
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2025

These unaired statements raise questions about editorial choices in broadcast journalism, especially as Trump continues to air grievances about 60 Minutes for what he claims was an unfairly edited interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. While time constraints are common in televised interviews, withholding full conversations—especially those containing controversial or revealing statements—can fuel partisan claims of media bias.

Releasing full interviews, as MSNBC ultimately did, could help restore public trust and offer a more complete view of political figures’ positions.

Anonymous Is Still At Work-

GlobalX, Airline for Trump’s Deportations, Hacked

Joseph Cox, Jason Koebler ·May 5, 2025 at 1:39 PM

Hackers say they have obtained what they say are passenger lists for GlobalX flights from January to this month. The data appear to include people who have been deported.

Hackers have targeted GlobalX Air, one of the main airlines the Trump administration is using as part of its deportation efforts, and stolen what they say are flight records and passenger manifests of all of its flights, including those for deportation, 404 Media has learned.

The data, which the hackers contacted 404 Media and other journalists about unprompted, could provide granular insight into who exactly has been deported on GlobalX flights, when, and to where, with GlobalX being the charter company that facilitated the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador.

“Anonymous has decided to enforce the Judge’s order since you and your sycophant staff ignore lawful orders that go against your fascist plans,” a defacement message posted to GlobalX’s website reads. Anonymous, well-known for its use of the Guy Fawkes mask, is an umbrella some hackers operate under when performing what they see as hacktivism.

The hacker says the data includes flight records and passenger lists. The hacker sent 404 Media a copy of the data, which is sorted into folders dated everyday from January 19 through May 1.

404 Media cross-checked known information about ICE deportation flights that come from official and confirmable sources with information contained on the flight manifests and flight details obtained by the hacker. Information about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s flight is in the hacked data.

For example, the hackers obtained what appears to be detailed flight information about GlobalX flights 6143, 6145, and 6122 that left from Harlingen, Texas’s Valley International Airport on March 15. These flights are at the center of a class-action lawsuit filed by five pseudonymous Venezuelan men against the Trump administration (which eventually went to the Supreme Court) and which took off during and immediately following a court proceeding in which their lawyers were trying to get a restraining order to prevent the flights from taking off.

During a District Court proceeding in Washington D.C., the federal government argued that it had no flight information to share with the court: “the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share,” during the hearing, the judge’s opinion in that case reads. “When pressed, Government counsel stated that the ‘operational details’ he had learned during the recess ‘raised potential national security issues,’ so they could not be shared while the public and press listened.”

“Although the Government has refused to provide the particular details, all evidence suggests that during the short window that the Court was adjourned, two removal flights took off from Harlingen—one around 5:25 pm and the other at about 5:45 pm,” court records say, noting that these were GlobalX flights 6143 and 6145; a third referenced flight left immediately following the hearing. These details closely match the timing of the flights and other details in the hacked data.

Also included in the data is a record mentioning the name Heymar Padilla Moyetones, a 24-year-old woman who was flown from Texas to Honduras, then from Honduras to El Salvador by mistake, and then was returned to Texas. The data obtained by the hackers says that GlobalX flew her from Valley International Airport in Texas to Honduras on March 15 on Flight 6143, then was flown from Comayagua International Airport in Honduras to El Salvador International on flight 6144 later that day. She then was flown directly from El Salvador International back to Valley International Airport in Texas on March 15. The information in the hacked data lines up with what Moyetones told NBC.

404 Media was also able to cross-check the names on larger published lists of people who have previously been reported to be deported, finding their names in the hacked data with the specific flights that they were purportedly on.

404 Media is not publishing the full list of passengers at this time as we work to verify which passengers were specifically on deportation flights and to protect peoples’ privacy because the manifests contain personally sensitive information like passport details. We will continue to analyze the data for information in the public interest and explore what we’re able to publish.

Neither GlobalX nor ICE responded to requests for comment.

The Trump administration contracts with a company called CSI Aviation as part of its deportation flights. On February 28, ICE posted a notice saying it would award $128 million to the company for its work. In turn, CSI Aviation subcontracts some of its work to GlobalX, which said it expects to make $65 million per year from the deal. In 2024, 74 percent of ICE’s more than 1,500 removal flights were on GlobalX plans, the Project on Government Oversight reported in March.

ProPublica previously reported on what it is like for flight attendants working on GlobalX, also known as Global Crossing Airlines. Sources in that piece said they were worried what would happen in an emergency, in part because the passengers were shackled.

“They never taught us anything regarding the immigration flights,” ProPublica quoted one flight attendant as saying. “They didn’t tell us these people were going to be shackled, wrists to fucking ankles.”

The hacker told 404 Media they managed to find a token belonging to a GlobalX developer. They then used that to find access and secret keys for GlobalX’s AWS instances which contained the data. They said they also sent a copy of the defacement message to GlobalX’s employees, and then deleted company data. 404 Media does not know the identity of the hacker, and the hacker said they sent the data to other journalists

The hacker said they also sent the message to GlobalX pilots and crew members through the company’s NAVBLUE account. NAVBLUE is a flight operations platform made by Airbus which pilots use for flight planning, among other things.

404 Media was unable to verify whether pilots or crew members received this message. But the hacker provided screenshots which appear to show them logged into the platform. They also provided a screenshot purporting to show access to GlobalX’s GitHub.

The website defacement quotes a May 1 ruling from US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez which said that the president unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act and blocked the administration from deporting more alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process.

The defacement adds: “You lose again Donnie.” (snip)

Let’s talk about Trump not knowing the Constitution or due process….

LGBTQ advocates celebrate wins after Pride flag banning bill and others fail this Session

LGBTQ advocates celebrate wins after Pride flag banning bill and others fail this Session

I think the tide is turning and the superexpressive attacks on the LGBTQ+ people, both adults and kids is not working well for republicans. I think they will see at local levels people are not buying it and are working to stop efforts to wipe all mention of LGBTQ+ people from society. Hugs

Gabrielle RussonMay 3, 2025

‘This is more than a policy victory,’ Equality Florida said.

LGBTQ advocates are celebrating several bills — including one that could have banned Pride flags flown at government buildings — stalling out this Session.

“Once again, we’ve done what many thought was impossible: not one anti-LGBTQ bill passed this session,” Equality Florida’s Executive Director Nadine Smith said in a statement Saturday.

The Legislative Session ended Friday although lawmakers failed to pass a balanced budget.

Some of the dead bills including HB 75/SB 100 that would have banned government buildings, schools and universities, from flying flags that represented a “political viewpoint.”

The proposal was sponsored by outgoing state Sen. Randy Fine before he left for Washington, D.C.

“How would we feel if the city of Palm Bay or the city of Ormond Beach flew the Make America Great Again flag from City Hall? How would we feel if a teacher hung that in their classroom?” Fine said during a March committee hearing. “The idea is whether it’s political viewpoints that we agree with or we disagree with, let’s keep that stuff out of government buildings.”

Equity Florida lobbied against the bill with its public policy director Jon Harris Maurer calling the flag ban “unnecessary, unclear, unconstitutional and dangerous.”

“It does not help Floridians struggling with insurance and housing affordability,” he said. “Instead, it is a made-up solution to a culture war for political purposes, but it will have real harms.”

Ultimately, Fine’s bill was withdrawn, failing to reach the Senate floor.

Equity Florida also heralded the defeat of other bills, including HB 1495/SB 440 to prevent governments from using the preferred pronouns for people who are transgender and other bills targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI.)

The organization pointed to its grassroots campaign this Session with 400 LGBTQ activists lobbying during “our largest largest advocacy week ever,” 16,000 emails sent to lawmakers and about 325 in-person meetings with legislators.

“It’s students and seniors, faith leaders and frontline workers, parents and teachers, standing together and making sure lawmakers hear us loud and clear: we will not back down,” Smith said in a statement.

Gabrielle Russon

Gabrielle Russon is an award-winning journalist based in Orlando. She covered the business of theme parks for the Orlando Sentinel. Her previous newspaper stops include the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Toledo Blade, Kalamazoo Gazette and Elkhart Truth as well as an internship covering the nation’s capital for the Chicago Tribune. For fun, she runs marathons. She gets her training from chasing a toddler around. Contact her at gabriellerusson@gmail.com or on Twitter @GabrielleRusson