More stories

  • in

    Trump’s latest tariffs ‘are real’ unless deals improve, economic adviser says

    Donald Trump has seen some trade deal offers and thinks they need to be better, Kevin Hassett, the White House economic adviser, said on Sunday, adding that the president will proceed with threatened tariffs on Mexico, the European Union and other countries if they don’t improve.“Well, these tariffs are real if the president doesn’t get a deal that he thinks is good enough,” Hassett told ABC’s This Week program. “But you know, conversations are ongoing, and we’ll see where the dust settles.“Hassett told ABC’s This Week program that Trump’s threatened 50% tariff on goods from Brazil reflect Trump’s frustration with the South American country’s actions as well as its trade negotiations with the US.On Thursday, Brazil threatened to retaliate against Trump’s plan with its own 50% tariff on US goods. “If he charges us 50%, we’ll charge him 50%,” Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, told local news outlet Record, a day after Trump threatened to impose steep duties on Brazilian goods.Hassett’s comments come one day after Trump announced on his Truth Social social media platform that goods imported from both the European Union and Mexico will face a 30% tariff rate starting on 1 August, angering European capitals who had thought they had previously reached a deal with Trump. The prior deal would have involved a 10% tariff, five times the pre-Trump tariff, which the bloc already described as “pain”.The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, on Sunday said he will work intensively with French president Emmanuel Macron and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to resolve the escalating trade war with the United States.“I discussed this intensively over the weekend with both Macron and Ursula von der Leyen,” Merz told German broadcaster ARD, adding he had also spoken with Trump about the matter.“We want to use this time now, the two and half weeks until August 1 to find a solution. I am really committed to this,” Merz said.Merz said the German economy would be hit hard by the tariffs, and he was doing his best to make sure US tariffs of 30% were not imposed.Unity in Europe and a sensible dialogue with the US president were now needed, Merz said, although countermeasures should not be ruled out. “But not before August 1,” he said.EU trade ministers are scheduled to meet on Monday for a pre-arranged summit and will be under pressure from some countries to implement €21bn ($24.6bn) in retaliatory measures, which are now paused until 1 August, the same day as Trump’s new deadline.Macron has called on the EU to “defend European interests resolutely” in response to Trump’s threats.French cheese and wine producers have warned of the damaging impact that Trump’s threatened 30% tariffs on imports from the EU would have on the country’s agriculture industry.A 30% duty would be “disastrous” for France’s food industry, said Jean-François Loiseau, the president of food lobby group ANIA, while Francois Xavier Huard, the CEO of dairy association FNIL, said: “It’s a real shock for milk and cheese producers – this is an important market for us.”In the interview with ABC News on Sunday, Hassett also said that Trump has the authority to fire the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, for cause if evidence supports that, adding that the Fed “has a lot to answer for” on renovation cost overruns at its Washington headquarters.Any decision by Trump to try to fire Powell over what the Trump administration calls a $700bn cost overrun “is going to depend a lot on the answers that we get to the questions that Russ Vought sent to the Fed”, Hassett said.Vought, the White House budget director, last week slammed Powell over an “ostentatious overhaul” of the Fed’s buildings and answers to a series of questions. Trump has repeatedly said that Powell should resign because he has not lowered interest rates, and the Wall Street Journal reported this week, citing anonymous sources, that Hassett is vying to succeed him as the Fed chair. More

  • in

    Undocumented builders face unchecked exploitation amid Trump raids: ‘It’s more work, less pay’

    As the Trump administration ramps up its crackdown on immigration, undocumented workers in the construction industry claim raids and arrests have emboldened some contractors to cut pay and increase hours.Rogelio, a tile setter, works for various contractors in the the Tucson, Arizona, region. He is undocumented, and did not provide his full name.When Donald Trump returned to office in January, Rogelio said his employers cut their rates by 30% to 40%. Other laborers told him they had endured similar treatment.“They decreased the pay by piece because they know most of the tile setters don’t have social security numbers, so they take advantage of that. We are in their hands,” Rogelio told the Guardian. “It’s more work, less pay. We have no choice right now.“We’re struggling with bills. We’re struggling with food. We’re struggling with everything because we don’t get enough money to pay whatever we need to pay.”Many of the undocumented immigrants Rogelio knows are only leaving home to work, Rogelio said. “We have a lot of fear,” he told the Guardian. “We look for news in the morning to see if we’re able to go to work or not.”With approximately 2.9 million US construction workers – about 34% of the workforce – foreign-born, construction sector lobbyists have publicly urged the Trump administration to soften their hardline stance on immigration. “While the need for safe and secure borders is paramount, mass deportation is not the answer,” Buddy Hughes, chairperson of the National Association of Home Builders, said in a statement.Advocates for workers rights say some operators in the sector are using Trump’s crackdown to abuse undocumented workers.“Especially in construction, there’re a lot of subcontractors that take advantage of this situation by not paying them the fair wage or not even paying them at all,” said Laura Becerra, movement politics director of the non-profit Workers Defense Project based in Texas.Undocumented workers are unlikely to lodge an official complaint, she added. “Since people don’t want to say anything because they don’t want to be put on the radar, and they’re also getting retaliated against if they do say something.”The administration is pushing ahead with public raids on undocumented immigrant workers. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency is arresting an increasing number of immigrants without any criminal history, according to a Guardian analysis of federal government data.“It’s an attack,” Becerra said. “It’s taking a toll on families, families that need to make ends meet, that are already suffering from low wages and doing work no one wants to do.”In Tucson, undocumented workers are avoiding freeways, according to Rogelio. “Freeways are one of the worst places to drive right now because of all the police and border patrol and they look for mostly hispanic people to stop,” he said. “We are living day by day and not knowing what’s going to happen tomorrow.”In some areas “there are spots where you can work with no problem,” he said. “But others, there are racist people living there and they don’t want us. They want our work, they want cheap labor, but they don’t want us.“We came here because we want to work and provide for our families. The only reason I’m here, personally, I have two kids who are American citizens. I’m not asking for any benefits from the government.”Reports from across the US suggest undocumented workers are facing unprecedented pressure.Savannah Palmira, director of organizing for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades district council 5, which covers workers in states around the Pacific north-west, said the threat of raids is making it harder for workers to organize.A roofing company in Washington was raided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) earlier this year after workers filed safety complaints, Palmira claimed, with the fear of retaliation stemming from that case spreading to other job sites, and leaving workers reluctant to speak out and file complaints against abusive work practices.“What contractors are doing is taking an opportunity to not be held accountable for their bad practices,” said Palmira. “The more and more people are starting to talk about workers getting taken advantage of, Ice is getting called on them. They’re taking a tool away from us to be able to put bad contractors on notice.”In Washington, another undocumented construction worker – who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation – said many of his coworkers were “thinking about going back to their countries” due to the reality of life in the US.“The last company I worked for took advantage of people in every situation,” he said, from dissuading injured workers from getting medical attention to denying overtime and breaks.“They say, you are undocumented, so they will pay you $10 an hour because you have no work permit,” he added. “And if not, they will tell Ice.”“In Washington state, immigrants make up 25% of the trades workforce in construction. With a consistent labor shortage and demand for housing constantly growing, residential construction needs all the skilled workers available,” a spokesperson for the Building Industry Association of Washington said in an email. “We’ve provided our members with guidance on how to legally employ immigrants, including verifying the identity and US employment authorization of all employees. We also generally support improving US Immigration policy to allow responsible and law-abiding undocumented worker a pathway to achieving citizenship.”Arizona Builders Alliance did not respond to multiple requests for comment.On a national level the construction industry has repeatedly warned of the negative impacts of immigration raids on what they claim has already been a severe labor shortage in US construction.Asked about contractors allegedly using the ramp up in immigration enforcement to cut pay and increase workloads, the National Association of Home Builders issued a statement from Hughes, its chairperson, which did not directly address the claims.“With the construction industry facing a deficit of more than 200,000 workers, policymakers must consider that any disruption to the labor force would raise housing costs, limit supply and worsen the nation’s housing affordability crisis,” Hughes said. “To address this pressing national issue, NAHB is urging Congress to support meaningful investments in our nation’s education system to encourage students to pursue careers in the skilled trades.“Policymakers should also support sensible immigration policies that preserve and expand existing temporary work visa programs while also creating new market-based visa programs that will accurately match demand with available labor.” More

  • in

    Trump takes on the Fed – but he has little power over central bank, economists say

    For months, Donald Trump has ranted on social media and, at one point, threatened to fire the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell. Last week, he took on a new, unusual tactic: a handwritten note.“You have cost the USA a fortune and continue to do so. You should lower the rate – by a lot!” Trump wrote to Powell, whom he calls “Too Late” in one of his less compelling nicknames.That Trump has targeted the Fed isn’t surprising. In the midst of Trump’s trade war, consumers and business owners alike have expressed anxiety about the economy. The stock market tanked in April, when the president announced the highest of his tariffs, and only went on the upswing when he pulled back the bulk of his levies.The Fed has the ability to sway the US economy through its ability to adjust interest rates. When rates are high, as they have been for the last few years, borrowing money becomes more expensive. This means higher rates for mortgages, business loans, credit card debt and more. People are less likely to invest when interest rates are high, which can slow activity in the economy. The Fed lowering interest rates would excite investors and spur economic activity, but the price could be steep in the long run.But how much sway does Trump really have over the Fed?While Trump’s aggression toward the Fed, particularly his personal attacks against Powell, are a remarkable departure from the relationship a US president typically has with the Fed, economists say the structure of the central bank limits the amount of power Trump actually has – at least in the short term.Historically, the Fed has been a nonpartisan, independent central bank within the federal government. Economists have found that countries without central banks are prone to high inflation and unemployment.“A central bank’s independence is pretty much the only thing macroeconomists know of that’s a free lunch,” said Jason Furman, a former economic adviser to Barack Obama. “When you look at authoritarian leaders that have effectively taken over the central banks, like in Turkey, you can end up with 70% inflation rates and really, really big economic problems.”In late June, Trump told reporters that he has zeroed in on “three or four people who I’m going to pick” to replace Powell. When the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, whose name has been floated, was asked if he would take the job, Bessent said: “I will do what the president wants.”That the White House is already talking about replacing Powell almost a year out from the end of his term has raised concerns that a new appointee would act as Trump’s “shadow chair”, or someone who has power over Powell before he leaves office.But those familiar with the Fed’s structure say that a powerful “shadow chair” is unlikely, especially since the Fed’s structure encourages consensus among its leaders.When setting interest rates, the Fed chair doesn’t act alone. The chair is one of 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which meets eight times a year to vote on any adjustments to the interest rate.The amount of control Trump has over who gets on to the FOMC is limited. The committee has seven Fed governors who serve 14-year terms. Those governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The other five members are presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks, who are selected within the Federal Reserve system.During the next four years, because of upcoming term limits, Trump will have the ability to appoint two of the 12 members of the FOMC – what would be a small fraction of the committee.“They’re going to have a hard time persuading other people on the committee to go along with anything like what Trump wants,” Furman said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRyan Sweet, chief US economist for Oxford Economics, said that Fed governors on the FOMC already voice dissenting views on the economy in public, but come together to form a consensus during their meetings.“It’s built [into the Fed] that they go into a meeting and they’ve got to come to a consensus on what the outcome is,” Sweet said.And even though Trump may want to replace Powell before his term is up, the supreme court signaled that the president can’t constitutionally fire him. Sweet pointed out that the court’s preemptive protection of the Fed chair has likely soothed stock markets, which had gone into a panic when Trump first threatened to oust Powell.Powell, whom Trump first appointed in 2018, has publicly resisted the president’s efforts to sway the Fed. He has said he would not step down if Trump asks and has said the Fed will not lower interest rates prematurely, at risk of raising inflation.In his most pointed statement against Trump’s economic policies, Powell said that the Fed paused interest rate cuts “when we saw the size of the tariffs”.“Essentially all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of tariffs,” Powell said. “We didn’t overreact, in fact we didn’t react at all.” This article was amended on 7 July 2025. Powell said the Fed paused interest rate cuts due to Trump’s tariffs, not interest rate increases. More

  • in

    Tesla shares dive as investors fear new Elon Musk political party will damage brand

    Shares in Tesla are heading for a sharp fall in the US as investors fear Elon Musk’s launch of a new political party will present further problems for the electric carmaker.Tesla stock was down more than 7% in pre-market trading on Monday, threatening to wipe approximately $70bn (£51bn) off the company’s value when Wall Street opens.If the shares fell by that much, the value of Musk’s stock would fall by more than $9bn to about $120bn. The Tesla and Space X boss remains comfortably the world’s richest person, with a wealth of about $400bn, according to Forbes.Tesla is valued at just under $1tn but its shares have come under pressure owing to the Tesla CEO’s relationship with Donald Trump.First, Musk’s strong support for the US president created a consumer backlash and now the antagonistic turn in his relationship with Trump has investors worried Musk will be distracted from his day job, or that the White House will punish his businesses.Dan Ives, analyst at Wedbush Securities, said Musk’s announcement that he is bankrolling a US political party will alarm investors.“Very simply, Musk diving deeper into politics and now trying to take on the Beltway establishment is exactly the opposite direction that Tesla investors/shareholders want him to take during this crucial period for the Tesla story,” Ives said, adding that there was a “broader sense of exhaustion” among Tesla investors that Musk – the company’s largest shareholder – will not stay out of politics.Trump on Sunday called Musk’s plans to form the America party “ridiculous”, launching new barbs at the world’s richest person.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a post on the Truth Social tech platform, Trump wrote: “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.”Musk announced the creation of the America party on his X platform at the weekend. He wrote: “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America party is formed to give you back your freedom.” More

  • in

    Trump and US commerce secretary say tariffs are delayed until 1 August, sparking confusion

    Donald Trump has said his administration plans to start sending letters on Monday to US trade partners dictating new tariffs, amid confusion over when the new rates will come into effect.“It could be 12, maybe 15 [letters],” the president told reporters, “and we’ve made deals also, so we’re going to have a combination of letters and some deals have been made.”With his previously announced 90-day pause on tariffs set to end on 9 July, the president was asked if the new rates would come into effect this week or on 1 August, as some officials had suggested.“No, there are going to be tariffs, the tariffs, the tariffs are going to be, the tariffs,” the president began uncertainly. “I think we’ll have most countries done by July 9, yeah. Either a letter or a deal.”Sensing the confusion, his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, jumped in to add: “But they go into effect on August 1. Tariffs go into effect August 1, but the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.”In April, Trump announced a 10% base tariff rate on most countries and additional duties ranging up to 50%, although he later delayed the effective date for all but 10% duties until 9 July.The new date of 1 August offers countries a further three-week reprieve but also plunges importers into an extended period of uncertainty because of the lack of clarity around the tariffs.Stock markets slipped in Asia on Monday amid the confusion. Japan’s Nikkei lost 0.3%, while South Korean stocks fell 0.7%. MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan eased 0.1%.European stocks were mixed. In the UK, the blue chip FTSE 100 index slipped 0.3%, with Shell and BP the biggest fallers on the back of weaker oil prices. The German Dax index rose by 0.3%, while in France the Cac 40 was broadly flat. The Stoxx Europe 600, which tracks the biggest companies on the continent, was also flat.Industrial metals dropped, with copper down by 0.6% to $9,808 per tonne on the London Metal Exchange. Aluminium fell by 1.1% to $2,561 a tonne on the exchange, where all major metals were trading lower on Monday morning.In an update on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said the US would begin delivering “TARIFF Letters, and/or Deals” from noon ET on Monday.“Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,” he added in a separate post, referring to the developing nations bloc that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.After a summit in Brazil on Sunday, Brics leaders had issued a joint statement raising “serious concerns about the rise of unilateral tariff” measures, which they said risked hurting the global economy.On Monday, the Chinese government said it opposed tariffs being used as a tool to coerce others. Mao Ning, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, said the use of tariffs served no one.Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, told CNN’s earlier on Sunday that several big announcements of trade agreements could come in the next days, noting that the EU had made good progress in its talks.He said Trump would also send out letters to 100 smaller countries with whom the US does not have much trade, notifying them that they would face higher tariff rates first set on 2 April and then suspended until 9 July.“President Trump’s going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don’t move things along then on August 1 you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level. So I think we’re going to see a lot of deals very quickly,” Bessent told CNN.Since taking office, Trump has set off a global trade war that has roiled financial markets and sent policymakers scrambling to guard their economies, including through deals with the US and other countries.Bessent said on Friday that negotiations were focused on 15 to 18 agreements with important partners. So far, Trump has signed deals with only two of the 60 countries he threatened with tariffs in April – the UK and Vietnam.Indonesia, with which the EU hopes to sign a trade deal by the end of the summer, will sign a deal to import at least 1m tonnes of US wheat annually for the next five years, the country’s flour mills association told AFP on Monday, as Jakarta lays the groundwork to avoid the worst of Trump’s tariffs. More

  • in

    Musk should stay out of politics, treasury secretary says after ‘America’ party news

    Elon Musk should focus on running his companies and keep himself out of politics, Donald Trump’s treasury secretary said on Sunday, a day after the world’s richest person – and a former White House adviser – announced the formation of a new political party.“The principles of Doge were very popular – I think if you looked at the polling Elon was not,” Scott Bessent said on CNN’s State of the Union, referring to the so-called “department of government efficiency” that Musk temporarily headed after Trump’s second presidency began in January.Opinion polls found Doge and Musk’s work implementing brutal spending and job cuts within the federal government to be deeply unpopular. And Bessent alluded to how investors in Musk’s companies – including the electrical vehicle maker Tesla, whose sales have suffered during Doge’s existence – publicly pleaded for his time with the Trump administration to be short-lived.“So I believe that the boards of directors at his various companies wanted him to come back and run those companies,” Bessent remarked. “I imagine that those boards of directors did not like this announcement yesterday, and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities.”Bessent’s reaction came after Musk delivered on his promise to form and bankroll a new US political party, and accused his one-time ally Trump of “bankrupting” the country by signing his massive tax and spending bill into law.The tech billionaire announced the creation of the America party in a series of posts late on Saturday and early Sunday to X, the social media platform he owns.“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” he wrote.“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”Musk, who was appointed to slash federal spending through the unofficial Doge from January through May, has been a vocal critic of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said would increase the national deficit by $3.3tn (£2.85tn) through 2034.It provides substantial tax cuts for the super wealthy while slashing federal safety net welfare programs, with up to 10.6 million people losing healthcare insurance.The pair have feuded over its cost and impacts since Musk left the government in May, and on Friday, when Trump signed the bill into law in a Fourth of July picnic at the White House, the Tesla and SpaceX chief opened a poll on X: “the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system”.Respondents voted two to one in the affirmative, Musk announced late on Saturday. He gave few details about the structure of his new venture or a timeline for its creation. But his earlier posts suggested it would focus on two or three Senate seats, and eight to 10 House districts.Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Republicans.“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,” Musk said.Bessent was one Trump ally to quickly take a swipe at Musk’s move.Musk’s series of posts to X, which continued into the early hours of Sunday, also appeared to indicate that his on-again, off-again relationship with Trump was firmly back in negative territory.When the pair fell out earlier in the summer, Musk lashed out during an astonishing social media duel in which he stated Trump’s name was in the files relating to associates of the late pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.Musk later deleted the post and apologized to the president as they embarked on an uneasy truce. On Sunday, however, Musk returned to the subject, reposting a photo of the jailed Epstein facilitator Ghislaine Maxwell that questioned why she was the only person in prison while men who engaged in sex with underage girls – a crime colloquially known in the US as statutory rape – were not.In other posts he said it would be “not hard” to break the two-party stranglehold in US politics enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans. And he questioned “when & where should we hold the inaugural American Party congress? This will be super fun!”There was no immediate comment from the White House about Musk’s announcement, but Trump has made clear his feelings about his former friend in recent days after criticism of the bill.In response to Musk’s posts calling the bill “insane”, Trump said he might “look into” deporting the South African-born, naturalized US citizen billionaire. The president also mused about slashing subsidies to his companies, especially SpaceX, which holds billions of dollars in government contracts.“Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?” Trump asked reporters on Tuesday.There is no requirement for new political parties in the US to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) initially, but reporting regulations kick in once spending surpasses what the FEC calls “certain thresholds”.Musk is estimated to have spent more than $275m of his personal fortune helping to get Trump elected to a second term in the White House in last November’s presidential election. More

  • in

    ‘It’s harsh. It’s mean, brutal’: Trump bill to cause most harm to America’s poorest

    Last November, Donald Trump made a solemn vow to all Americans: “Every citizen, I will fight for you, your family and your future every single day.” Eight months later, Trump is vigorously backing many policies that will mean pain for millions.Trump has pushed to enact the Republican budget bill, which would make significant cuts to Medicaid, Obamacare, and food assistance, and would do the greatest damage to those Americans struggling hardest to make ends meet – the 30% of the US population that lives in households earning under $50,000 a year.Even as Trump and Republican lawmakers are rushing to cut over $1.4tn in health and food assistance for non-affluent Americans, Trump continues to pressure Congress to extend over $3tn in tax cuts that disproportionately help the wealthy and corporations.Trump has embraced these Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies, even though it was voters earning less than $50,000 a year who delivered victory to him last November. They favored him over Kamala Harris by 50% to 48%, according to exit polls, while Trump and Harris tied among voters earning $50,000 or more a year.Several social policy experts said Trump has engaged in hypocrisy at best and betrayal at worst when it comes to the working-class and blue-collar Americans he promised to fight for. Speaking about the Republicans’ “big, beautiful” budget bill, Sharon Parrott, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said: “Who’s getting hit, who’s bearing the cost? It’s people with low and middle incomes, people that the president and many Republican policymakers promised to serve and support in the last election.”View image in fullscreenThe budget bill would mean a net financial loss for the bottom 30% of American households by income – after factoring in its tax provisions and cuts in benefits. The House bill would hit the lowest-earning 10% of Americans hardest: for them, it would mean a painful $1,600 cut in income on average (a 3.9% drop), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). At the same time, the Trump-backed bill would be a boon to wealthy households – it would mean a $12,000 increase in net income, on average, for households in the top 10%, those earning above $692,000 a year. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the top 0.1% – those with income over $3.3m – would receive tax cuts of $103,500 on average.The CBO says the income of the bottom 10% tops off at $22,868 (before factoring in government transfers). The second lowest decile earns from $22,868 to $43,137; the third decile earns up to $55,628; and the fourth up to $68,601.The Yale Budget Lab found that the bottom 20% of US households would see their incomes drop by 2.9% on average over the next decade, and the second lowest quintile – moderate-income households – would suffer a 0.4% loss of income on average. But the richest 20% would see their incomes rise by 2.3%. Those in the top 1% would see their incomes climb by $29,585 on average.Trump is demanding these big tax cuts for the rich even though the CBO says the budget bill will increase the federal debt by $3.3tn – a move that will push up interest rates and make mortgages and home-buying more expensive.According to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning thinktank, the $121bn tax cuts that would go just to the richest 1% next year are significantly more than all the tax cuts that would go to the bottom 60% of Americans in terms of income.The poorest 20% of Americans would receive just 1% of the bill’s tax cuts next year, while the highest earning 5% would receive 44% of the cuts.Last week, Trump urged lawmakers to enact the bill, saying: “There are hundreds of things in there. It is so good.” At a news conference, the president said the more than $1tn in Medicaid and food assistance cuts wouldn’t hurt anyone.“It won’t affect anybody,” he said. “It is just fraud, waste and abuse.”But Parrott took a sharply different view: “The bill stands alone historically for its unique upside-down mix of large tax cuts for the top, deep cuts that affect low- and middle-income people, and massive increases in deficits and debt.”John Ricco, the Yale Budget Lab’s associate director of policy analysis, said: “It’s unambiguous that low- and moderate-income Americans will be worse off on average under the budget bill, and that’s principally because the cuts in Medicaid and Snap [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] would by definition fall most heavily on these groups,” Ricco said.Jeanne Lambrew, the Century Foundation’s director of health policy reform, estimates that at least 16 million Americans will lose health coverage because of the budget bill – refuting White House claims that “no one will lose coverage”. Lambrew said the bill would cause a more than 50% increase in the number of uninsured nationwide, to nearly 45 million people.What’s more, the Trump-backed plan sharply reduces Affordable Care Act subsidies, and that will force millions of Americans to either drop coverage or pay far more for coverage. Millions of Americans will find it harder to obtain healthcare, with many forced to take on far more medical debt.While Trump and many Republicans say the Medicaid cuts are all about reducing “waste, fraud and abuse”, Lambrew calculates that a mere 3.5% of the $1tn in healthcare cuts come from cutting waste and abuse. “What Trump has been saying is, ‘We’re not cutting Medicaid. We’re just cutting fraud.’ That’s gaslighting.” Lambrew said.Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent the Senate a letter that harshly criticized the budget bill. “As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality,” he wrote. “This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy.”According to a Quinnipiac University poll, only 27% of registered voters support the GOP budget bill, while 53% oppose it. A Fox News poll found that 38% support the bill, while 59% oppose it.The House bill’s deep cuts in food benefits will cause 7 million people, including over 2 million children, to lose food aid or have their food aid cut significantly. The Trump-supported bill also makes sharp cuts in Pell grant awards. The Center for American Progress says this means 4.4 million students from low- and moderate-income families could lose some or all of their federal grant aid.In another blow to Americans earning under $50,000, Trump pushed to have the budget bill eliminate the “Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program”, which, as one website put it, “keeps poor people from freezing to death at home”. Killing the program would end heating subsidies for 6 million Americans, but so far congressional Republicans have spared the program and not bowed to Trump on this.View image in fullscreenIn another blow to blue-collar Americans, the bill would undo much of Joe Biden’s efforts to speed the creation of clean-energy industries, and that could put hundreds of thousands of potential jobs at risk, many of them factory jobs.“In this bill, folks in Congress went out of their way not to give anything to low-income people,” said Chuck Marr, vice-president for federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. He noted that in previous tax cut bills that favored the rich, GOP lawmakers made sure to include some sweeteners for low- and moderate-income Americans.“But in this bill,” Marr said, “folks in Congress said: no, we’re going to go after these people. They’re going after healthcare and food, and these are the people who are also going to get hammered by Trump’s tariffs.” Lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on goods.“This bill is a major shift,” Marr added. “They’re taking away from poor people and working-class people and channeling it to very high-income people. I think it’s punitive. It’s harsh. It’s mean, brutal.”Trump’s tariffs would also hit less affluent Americans hardest. One study found that Trump’s planned tariffs would cause the bottom 20% of households to pay up to 5.5% of their income toward tariff-caused higher prices. That’s more than two and a half times the percentage that those in the top 20% would pay (2.1% of income).Trump has repeatedly boasted that the bill contains several provisions he championed to help working-class Americans. At a White House event to promote the bill, he pointed to a DoorDash driver from Wisconsin who was on hand to help make his case that the “no tax on tips” provision would help workers.But tax experts say that provision will help only a tiny fraction of those earning under $50,000. Only 4% of workers in the bottom half by income are in tipped jobs. Moreover, nearly two-fifths of tipped workers are already earning so little that they don’t pay federal income taxes.“Given how the current income tax system works, this provision will provide little or no benefit to those workers,” said Ricco. “Those workers tend to have low incomes, and the US system doesn’t basically tax their incomes, and this won’t offer them any additional tax reduction.” In other words, the server making $100,000 a year at a high-end restaurant will benefit substantially from no tax on tips, while the hotel housekeeper or 20-hour-a-week waiter at a diner making $25,000 a year will be helped little or not at all.As for Trump’s much-ballyhooed “no tax on overtime” provision, that, too, will do little for those earning under $50,000, Ricco said. “That provision is really geared to middle- and upper-middle groups,” he said. “People in the bottom 50% aren’t paying much income tax, and so no tax on overtime wouldn’t benefit them much. People in the bottom 40%, they’re often in a precarious employment situation. They’re generally not working 45 or 50 hours a week.”Ricco estimated that for Americans in the bottom 40% by income, the no tax on overtime provision will mean “less than a $10 tax cut per year”. “It’s essentially a rounding error,” he said.Republicans boast that increasing the child-tax credit will help millions of struggling families – the House bill would increase that credit, now $2,000, to $2,500, while the Senate raises it to $2,200. Under current law, one in four children – about 17 million – are ineligible to qualify for the full $2,000 credit because their family’s income is too low to qualify for the full credit. A two-parent family with two children needs to earn over $48,000 to obtain the full credit.Under the House bill, a single parent with two children who earns $16,000 a year would get no additional tax credit, while a married couple with two kids and a $400,000 income would see their tax credit jump by $1,000.With their eagerness to cut the social safety net, Republicans seem to be treating millions of Americans who earn less than $50,000 as undeserving takers. “People earning under $50,000 are major targets of the Republican agenda. Their health coverage is targeted. Their food security is targeted,” said Marr. “They are left out of key provisions expanding tax cuts, like the child tax credit. They are most at risk from the Republican tariffs. They’ll be hurt across the board.”Marr said the budget bill treats “these people very harshly”.“It’s the harshest bill we’ve ever seen since budget deficits became an issue 40 years ago,” he said. “This is the first bill that simultaneously targets programs for poor people and working-class people to pay for it, and then takes that money to pay for tax cuts for very wealthy people. It makes poor and working-class people worse off. That’s not been done before.” More

  • in

    Wall Street shivers over ‘hot commie summer’ after Mamdani’s success

    When Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old self-described socialist, won New York’s mayoral Democratic nomination last week over a seasoned but scandal-scarred veteran, the city’s financial elite had a meltdown.This was the start of “hot commie summer” in the city, New York hedgevfund billionaire Daniel Loeb posted to X. John Catsimatidis, billionaire CEO of grocery chain Gristedes and friend of Donald Trump, warned on Fox Business: “If the city of New York is going socialist, I will definitely close, or sell, or move.”CNBC financial news channel anchor Joe Kernen compared New York to Batman’s crime-riddled Gotham. “ They’re taking Wall Streeters and making them walk out onto the ice in the East River, And, and then they fall through. I mean there is a class warfare that’s going on.”With five months until the mayoral election proper, the 1% are revolting, led by loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit “hundreds of millions of dollars” into an opposing campaign. “The risk/reward of running for mayor over the next 132 days is extremely compelling as the cost in time and energy is small and the upside is enormous.”Ackman said he was “gravely concerned” because he believed the leftwing candidate’s policies would trigger an exodus of the wealth that would destroy the tax base and undermine New York’s public services. The city under Mamdani, he posted on Wedneday, “is about to become much more dangerous and economically unviable.”In 2021, the top 1% of New York City taxpayers paid 48% of taxes – up from 40% in 2019, according to a report from the city’s finance department. But at the same time, New York has become an increasingly unaffordable city for those outside the 1% – especially for people of color.In a post a day later, Ackman said: “The ability for New York City to offer services for the poor and needy, let alone the average New Yorker, is entirely dependent on New York City being a business-friendly environment and a place where wealthy residents are willing to spend 183 days and assume the associated tax burden. Unfortunately, both have already started making arrangements for the exits.”“Terror is the feeling,” Kathryn Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, which represents top business leaders, told CNBC on Tuesday.Gerard Filitti, senior legal counsel at the Lawfare Project, a pro-Israel thinktank, non-profit and litigation fund, and a New Yorker with strong ties to the finance industry, said Mamdani’s nomination “marked a dangerous turning point for the city”.“There’s big concern that businesses and the economy will be hurt. There’s already a move by business leaders and entrepreneurs to consider a move outside of the city, taking jobs and tax dollars with them, at time when the front-running candidate promises to make even more change that could destroy the economy,” Filitti said.The anger was not necessarily purely economic. Wall Street’s decision makers have been shaken after seeing their preferred candidate, Andrew Cuomo, pushed aside despite the millions they poured into his campaign.Fix the City, Cuomo’s political action committee (Pac), raised a record $25m to help see off Mamdani. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg alone gave $8.3m to the Pac.“These are billionaires who are giving hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars to Andrew Cuomo precisely because they know we are going to tax them to make life a little bit more affordable here, in the most expensive city in the United States,” Mamdani told the New York Times before the election. “They know they can count on Cuomo because Cuomo has a track record of rewarding the political donors.”View image in fullscreenNew York’s moneyed class argues it’s not about them but the future of the city. “When you look at what New York City is and has been historically – a bastion of trading and the center of world capitalism, the engine of economic growth and prosperity, the stock market, an the inspiration for other world economies to develop their markets and economies in line with New York – and now what were seeing is an economy and quality of life that is slowly deteriorating,” said Filitti.“Now we have a front-running Democrat candidate who is promising even more radical change and that change is a threat to the structure of New York and the way people identify with New York City,” Filitti added.It’s an argument the rich have made many times before. Many of the 1% threatened to leave after former mayor Bill de Blasio called for raising their taxes to pay for the losses the city experienced after the Covid pandemic. Wall Street poured millions into mayor Eric Adam’s 2021 campaign for office to see off more progressive candidates. They won those fights; this time, they lost.A former Wall Street CEO told Politico: “These titans of Wall Street and titans of finance are used to getting their way. They didn’t get their way. They got the opposite of their way. They got a guy who couldn’t be more disliked by them – and vice versa.”Wall Street’s vision for the city is probably far from that shared by many other residents of a sprawling metropolis that traditionally has played host to vibrant immigrant communities from all over the world, many of them poor. It is of course, host to the Statue of Liberty on whose base is written the famous lines: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”Manhattan was also the birthplace of the Occupy Wall Street protests in the US back in 2011, which occupied the downtown Zucotti Square – blocks from Wall Street – and eventually saw protests spread across the rest of the country and the world.Democratic progressives were quick to celebrate Mamdani’s victory. “Your dedication to an affordable, welcoming, and safe New York City where working families can have a shot has inspired people across the city. Billionaires and lobbyists poured millions against you and our public finance system. And you won,” wrote representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another progressive who won out against a more establishment candidate.Another longtime critic of Wall Street and the billionaire class also saw a change in politics as usual. “The American people are beginning to stand up and fight back. We have seen that in the many Fighting Oligarchy events that we’ve done around the country that have drawn huge turnouts. We have seen that in the millions of people who came out for the No Kings rallies that took place this month in almost every state. And yesterday, we saw that in the Democratic primary in New York City,” senator Bernie Sanders wrote in The Guardian.Millions will now be spent attacking Mamdani. But he has seen off one well-funded attempt to derail his campaign. Whether or not his campaign has the momentum to last until November, remains to be seen. But Wall Streeters have been put on notice that New York, and the changing nature of the Democratic party, may no longer be as amenable to their interests, or their vision for New York. More