Their goal is to copy Russia. The goal is to wipe the LGBTQ+ community from society, from the public view. They want to make us illegal like in the most hateful countries or again to be like Russia under Putin. I used to think these people wanted to return to the 1950s but now I think I was wrong. They want to return to the early 1930s when the Nazi party was very active and strong in the US. I kept telling the people who wanted the LGB to let the t go to protect the rest that it was a divide and conquer strategy and that they would come for the rest of us next. And they are doing that. Just being gay or fighting the haters trying to deny gay people rights is a security risk to nation according to them. Hugs
There’s a new “Axis of Evil” in the Trump administration cosmology and it’s not al Qaeda or North Korea. Instead, the preeminent threat to national security, according to the hapless folks at Donald Trump’s personal law firm, is anyone who ever donated money to LGBTQ civil rights organization GLAD. At least that’s the government’s new working theory as it tries to justify its retaliatory executive order against Susman Godfrey.
Had Susman, for example, taken on that GLAD challenge pro bono, the allegation would still be risible, but when the whole argument hinges on the firm generally donating to a prominent non-profit it crosses into professionally embarrassing.
Aside from trying to tag Susman for its charitable contributions, it’s also deeply troubling to suggest that filing a federal lawsuit is a “dangerous effort to undermine the effectiveness of the United States military.” In a rule of law society (I know, I know, but humor me on this idea for the moment), “going to court” isn’t sedition, but the system working as intended. Checks and balances and all that stuff. To call a federal lawsuit an effort to undermine the government, requires adopting the premise that it’s a threat to make sure the government isn’t doing anything illegal. Courts can get the law wrong, but the point is that we encourage people to take grievances to court and not storm federal buildings… you know, the behavior that we traditionally considered a “dangerous effort to undermine” the government. Not so much these days.
There’s no bright line between the GLAD challenge and any other discrimination case brought against the DOD. If the government chooses to contest a suit for any reason, under this standard, it’s an effort to undermine the effectiveness of the military. Frankly, there’s not much keeping the DOJ from expanding this rationale to any other case brought against the government. That would put us a little beyond warnings about a slippery slope and into “that point where Wile E. Coyote hasn’t noticed he’s off the cliff yet.”
Not that GLAD’s challenge would’ve dangerously undermined effectiveness. General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated unequivocally that there isno problem with transgender troops if they meet standards. But as a career soldier, Milley cared more about merit and the ability to do the job. A civilian talk show host more interested in texting war plans to his buddies might have… different priorities.
Though all of this remains far afield of the instant issue: Susman Godfrey, giving money to an organization that has in the past filed a civil rights challenge, is not even in the same universe as a threat to national security.
But you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take, I guess.
This is selective persecution which is illegal. So if this ever goes to court he will have the charges dismissed. In the meantime the hate party cult of tRump just made him a front runner for the mayoral election. Hugs.
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested for allegedly trespassing at an ICE facility in New Jersey on Friday afternoon, authorities said.
“The Mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon,” Alina Habba, the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, posted on X.
Baraka was taken to an ICE field office at 620 Frelinghuysen Ave. in Newark, according to his office. The charges have not been announced.
“We are actively monitoring and will provide more details as they become available,” his representatives said.
Witnesses said the arrest came after Baraka attempted to join a scheduled tour of the facility with three members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation, Reps. Robert Menendez, LaMonica McIver, and Bonnie Watson Coleman.
When federal officials blocked his entry, a heated argument broke out, according to Viri Martinez, an activist with the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice. It continued even after Baraka returned to the public side of the gates.
In video of the altercation shared with The Associated Press, a federal official in a jacket with the logo of the Homeland Security Investigations can be heard telling Baraka he could not join a tour of the facility because “you are not a congress member.”
Baraka then left the secure area, rejoining protesters on the public side of the gate. Video showed him speaking through the gate to a man in a suit, who said: “They’re talking about coming back to arrest you.”
“I’m not on their property. They can’t come out on the street and arrest me,” Baraka replied.
Minutes later several ICE agents, some wearing face coverings, surrounded him and others on the public side. As protesters cried out, “Shame,” Baraka was dragged back through the security gate in handcuffs.
“The ICE personnel came out aggressively to arrest him and grab him,” said Julie Moreno, a New Jersey state captain of American Families United. “It didn’t make any sense why they chose that moment to grab him while he was outside the gates.”
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that as a bus of detainees was entering the detention center, “a group of protestors, including two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, stormed the gate and broke into the detention facility.”
Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin was quoted in the statement as calling it “beyond a bizarre political stunt” and saying it put agents’ and detainees’ safety at risk.
“Members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities. Had these members requested a tour, we would have facilitated a tour of the facility,” McLaughlin said.
The department said the facility has the proper permits and inspections have been cleared.
The Newark mayor was visiting Delaney Hall to conduct oversight after the building was turned into an ICE facility.
Delany Hall was leased for $63 million annually from a private prison group known as The GEO Group. The city of Newark is suing for more inspections, claiming ICE has not indicated how many detainees it has in the building – which can only house 1,000 people.
Baraka said on Monday that the issues at Delany Hall go beyond the lack of safety inspections and proper permits.
This is a developing story please check back for updates.
Dominique Jack is a digital content producer from Brooklyn with more than five years of experience covering news. She joined PIX11 in 2024. More of her work can be found here.
–Associated press material was used in this report.
People shop in a supermarket in New York City on Feb. 20, 2025.
Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images
The Department of Agriculture is demanding states hand over personal data of food assistance recipients — including Social Security numbers, addresses and, in at least one state, citizenship status, according to emails shared with NPR by an official who was not allowed to speak publicly.
The sweeping and unprecedented request comes as the Trump administration ramps up the collection and consolidation of Americans’ sensitive data, and as that data has been used to make misleading claims about people in the U.S. illegally accessing public benefits and committing fraud, and to build a greater capacity to deport them.
The emails obtained by NPR also show the nationwide directive regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, follows a request by federal auditors for information that included citizenship data but not other data typically used to verify financial eligibility for the program.
The latest data demands are “absolutely alarming,” and “reckless” and likely violate the Privacy Act and other statutes, said John Davisson, senior counsel and director of litigation at the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center. He and other advocates warn the data could be used to enable deportation and mass surveillance efforts and would do little to address improper payments.
“It is an unprecedented extension of the administration’s campaign to consolidate personal data,” Davisson said.
USDA’s unusual data request
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is a federal program. Each state administers the program and enrolls participants based on eligibility determined by Congress. While the USDA and its Office of Inspector General can audit state SNAP programs, participants’ personal data typically remains under the state’s control.
In March, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General notified California, Florida, New York and Texas of inspections of their SNAP programs to see if the states were improperly using administrative funds to pay out benefits, the emails show.
That ultimately led to a request for detailed sensitive data — including citizenship status and addresses — of all SNAP participants in the previous year from at least one of the states.
A sign outside of a grocery store welcomes those on food assistance in a Brooklyn neighborhood that has a large immigrant and elderly population on Oct. 16, 2023 in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
An April 2 update the state received from the OIG’s office added a new objective: performing analytics on participant data to “evaluate its quality and integrity.” Yet the watchdog ultimately declined to request participants’ employment status or income — which are key for determining financial eligibility for food assistance and detecting possible fraud.
Instead, the request prioritized other data fields, including name, date of birth, address, contact information, Social Security number, citizenship status and information about household members, the emails show.
At an initial joint video conference, the states learned the inspections had been requested by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, according to an official who attended the meeting but was not authorized to discuss the matter. Trump fired existing inspectors general across the federal government when he took office, including at the USDA where a new permanent leader of the office has yet to be confirmed.
Earlier this week, the USDA escalated its quest for data further.
In a May 6 letter to all states, an adviser for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services said the federal agency would be seeking personally identifiable information for SNAP applicants and recipients, including, but not limited to, “names, dates of birth, personal addresses used, and Social Security numbers” going back to Jan. 1, 2020. USDA did not answer NPR’s questions about the full extent of personal data it was requesting.
The letter said USDA is asking private contractors that process SNAP payments for states to turn over that data, and will use it to “ensure program integrity, including by verifying the eligibility of benefit recipients.” The directive comes as Republican lawmakers in Congress are proposing deep cuts to the food assistance program that would reduce the number of people who participate in it.
DOGE’s role
The May 6 letter cited President Donald Trump’s March 20 executive order, “Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos,” which calls on agencies to ensure the federal government “has unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding “including from “third-party databases” in order to identify fraud and overpayments.
Fidelity Information Services, a vendor used by some states to process electronic bank transfer transactions for SNAP programs, told its state partners the day before USDA’s letter to states that the agency and its DOGE team contacted them in connection to the executive order, and that “no proprietary, confidential, or personally identifiable information” was shared, according to emails obtained by NPR.
A customer shops for eggs at a grocery store on March 12, 2025 in Chicago.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
“FIS values its close working relationship with both USDA and its state partners and is committed to supporting efforts to improve program efficiency and reduce fraud,” reads a statement the company provided to NPR. “As agreed with the USDA and in compliance with federal regulation, FIS has notified States of the USDA’s request and is working with both to determine the most efficient manner to respond with the requested information.”
Wired, the Washington Post and CNN have reported that DOGE is also combining sensitive data from across agencies, including Social Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service, to create a data tool that can help the federal government track and arrest immigrants they want to remove.
More than a dozen federal lawsuits allege DOGE staffers have been illegally granted permission to view databases with personal and financial information the government maintains, and multiple federal judges have expressed concern about what information DOGE has accessed and why. Late last month, DHS announced a DOGE-led overhaul of its Systematic Alien Verification Entitlements (SAVE) database, making the system free for state and local governments to use and promising a “single, reliable source for verifying non-citizen status nationwide.”
Davisson, the privacy attorney, said the SNAP data being requested could be used to make exaggerated allegations of fraud, and that combining the information with other DOGE-obtained data could be used for immigration enforcement efforts.
“What they’re building is a surveillance weapon and it can be put to all sorts of adverse uses in the future,” said Davisson.
NPR asked the USDA if the agency would be following protocols outlined in the Privacy Act, such as publishing a privacy assessment and System of Records Notice for the new dataset. An unnamed spokesperson using a USDA press email account told NPR the agency’s general counsel is determining whether that is required.
“All personally identifiable information will comply with all privacy laws and regulations and will follow responsible data handling requirements,” the email said.
Fraud and abuse with SNAP benefits are rare
After Trump issued an executive order in February aimed at ensuring immigrants without legal status are not receiving federal benefits, Agriculture Secretary Rollins made combatting alleged mispayments to ineligible immigrants a focus.
“The days in which taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize illegal immigration are over,” Rollins said in a February press release.
Most of the improper payments in 2022 were due to unintentional mistakes by state workers or households, rather than intentional fraud, according to an analysis of the data by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
Only 50% of eligible noncitizens (which includes refugees and green card holders) and 59% of eligible children living with noncitizen adults participated in SNAP in 2022, according to a USDA report. Overall, advocates said participation among those who are entitled to receive this benefit is low due to fears that it may have a negative impact on immigration proceedings.
A sign alerting customers about SNAP food stamps benefits is displayed in a Brooklyn grocery store on Dec. 5, 2019 in New York City.
Scott Heins/Getty Images
Even though immigrants without legal status are not eligible to receive SNAP or other federal benefits, SNAP data does include the names and addresses of people who could be subject to deportation now or in the future, or who share a household with people who could be.
Some legal immigrants who receive SNAP benefits may lose their legal status in the future given that the administration is trying to reverse Biden-era immigration programs that granted hundreds of thousands of people the ability to live and work in the U.S.
For years, advocates and state agencies have tried to reassure immigrant families that it is safe for them to sign up for assistance if they met the eligibility requirements.
“People seeking services need to know that their information will be used only to administer the program — and won’t put them or their family members at risk,” said Tanya Broder, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center.
“But the federal government’s demand for ‘unfettered’ access to sensitive data across multiple agencies, and its aggressive pursuit of immigrants, raise serious privacy concerns and the potential that information will be weaponized against people who would go hungry without assistance.”
On an FAQ page to sign up for food assistance from California, the site currently says the state will not report applicants’ immigration status to authorities and information is used only to determine eligibility.
“Authorities cannot use this information to deport you unless there is a criminal violation,” the state website says.
New York’s website says: “Applying for or receiving SNAP will not affect your ability to remain in the United States.”
Advocates NPR spoke with said it is important for SNAP participants to understand that it is not yet known at this point how states will handle the USDA’s pending data requests.
Esther Reyes with Protecting Immigrant Families, a coalition of 700 groups across the country that help eligible immigrants access services, is urging states to check with their congressional delegations about whether the data requests are legal before responding.
As for people who may feel fearful about enrolling in SNAP given concerns over data, Reyes said, “We really encourage families and communities to talk to enrollment workers and the people that they trust before acting on that fear.”
NPR’s Ximena Bustillo contributed reporting.
Have information you want to share about SNAP, DOGE access to government databases and immigration? Reach out to these authors through encrypted communication on Signal. Stephen Fowler is at stphnfwlr.25, Jude Joffe-Block is at JudeJB.10 and Ximena Bustillo is at ximenabustillo.77. Please use a nonwork device.
Correction May 9, 2025
An earlier version of this story misspelled John Davisson’s name.
Following Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military, Jordan Klepper met with a panel of esteemed service members to discuss the president’s rejection of their qualifications, which stand in stark contrast to Trump’s own bone spur excuses
In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar — a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.
The gift is expected to be announced next week, when Trump visits Qatar on the first foreign trip of his second term, according to sources familiar with the plans.
Trump toured the plane, which is so opulently configured it is known as “a flying palace,” while it was parked at the West Palm Beach International Airport in February.
A 13-year-old private Boeing aircraft that President Donald Trump toured on Saturday to check out new hardware and technology features and highlight the aircraft maker’s delay in delivering updated versions of the Air Force One presidential aircraft, takes off from Palm Beach International Airport, Sunday, Feb. 16, 2025, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (A…Show more
Ben Curtis/AP
The highly unusual — unprecedented — arrangement is sure to raise questions about whether it is legal for the Trump administration, and ultimately, the Trump presidential library foundation, to accept such a valuable gift from a foreign power.
Anticipating those questions, sources told ABC News that lawyers for the White House counsel’s office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution’s prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts “from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
Sources told ABC News that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump’s top White House lawyer David Warrington concluded it would be “legally permissible” for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump’s presidential library before the end of his term, according to sources familiar with their determination.
The sources said Bondi provided a legal memorandum addressed to the White House counsel’s office last week after Warrington asked her for advice on the legality of the Pentagon accepting such a donation.
The White House and DOJ didn’t immediately respond to request for comment. A spokesperson for the Qatari embassy did not respond to ABC’s inquiries.
President Donald Trump speaks with reporters after disembarking Marine One upon arrival on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Sunday, May 4, 2025.
Rod Lamkey/AP
The plane will initially be transferred to the United States Air Force, which will modify the 13-year-old aircraft to meet the U.S. military specifications required for any aircraft used to transport the president of the United States, multiple sources familiar with the proposed arrangement said.
The plane will then be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation no later than Jan. 1, 2029, and any costs relating to its transfer will be paid for by the U.S. Air Force, the sources told ABC News.
According to aviation industry experts, the estimated value of the aircraft Trump will inherit is about $400 million, and that’s without the additional communications security equipment the Air Force will need to add to properly secure and outfit the plane in order to safely transport the commander in chief.
As the Wall Street Journal first reported, the aviation company L3Harris has already been commissioned to overhaul the plane to meet the requirements of a presidential jet.
President Donald Trump walks to board Marine One to depart for Alabama, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 1, 2025.
Nathan Howard/Reuters
Both the White House and DOJ concluded that because the gift is not conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery, the sources said. Bondi’s legal analysis also says it does not run afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on foreign gifts because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, the sources said.
The primary aircraft used in the current Air Force One fleet includes two aging Boeing 747-200 jumbo jets that have been operational since 1990. The Air Force contract with Boeing to replace those aircraft has been riddled with delays and cost overruns.
The original contract was signed in 2018, but as of last year, Boeing anticipated the aircraft would not be ready until 2029, after Trump leaves office.
The president has expressed deep frustration with the delays, tasking Elon Musk to work with Boeing and the Air Force to speed up the process. Those efforts have been modestly successful. Boeing’s most recent estimated delivery date is now 2027, but Trump has made it clear he wants a new plane this year.
May 11, 1973 Charges against former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg (including conspiracy, espionage and larceny) for his role in the release of The Pentagon Papers (a comprehensive classified study of the origins and conduct of the Vietnam War) were dismissed. Judge William M. Byrne cited government misconduct, including attempts to bribe him with an appointment as FBI Director, and previously undisclosed wiretaps of Ellsberg. His compatriot, Tony Russo, a former RAND Corporation analyst, was also released. Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers a book review Daniel Ellsberg’s website
May 11, 1975 80,000 turned out in New York City’s Central Park to celebrate the end of the Vietnam War.
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]
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.
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]
figure 3
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 the2017 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]
[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.
[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.
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.
#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. @abc4utahpic.twitter.com/zAWlJaOPm4
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
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
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
FYI, Salt Lake City isn't alone in doing adopting special flags to circumvent the new state law. The Boise City Council did the same thing last night. From @fox13news.bsky.social's sister-station in Boise: http://www.kivitv.com/downtown-boi… #utpol #Utah
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
Scottie's Playtime 