

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Today, the Morris Pearl, Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires released a hard-hitting opinion in response to the New Yorker's article, in which Pearl is quoted, entitled "The Billionaires' Loophole."
Proudly "traitors to their class", the Patriotic Millionaires are dedicated to ending the wholesale corruption of our tax code and implementing a fair tax system that can adequately fund our citizens' common interests.
Other members include: the founder of Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer, founder of MOMs Organic Market Scott Nash, several Google engineers including employee number 20 and number 59 David desJardins and Doug Edwards respectively, filmmaker Abigail Disney, textile entrepreneur Great Neck Richman, corrugated cardboard mogul Dennis Mehiel and many other high net worth individuals from across the country. You can find the full list at https://patrioticmillionaires.org/who-we-are/
As Americans across the country finalize their tax returns today, the Patriotic Millionaires will be available for media appearances and on-the-record interviews in cities across the country all this week.
Read Morris Pearl's full response below and on Medium:
Alec MacGillis' piece "The Billionaires' Loophole," published March 14, 2016, ostensibly explores the fairness of the carried interest tax loophole, a giveaway to fund managers that "helps" increase their capacity to charitably fund projects that the government isn't able to complete. The help comes in the form of preferential tax treatment which allows fund managers to pay a capital gains rate of 20% on income that by any reasonable measure should be considered "ordinary income."
As a case in point, MacGillis (who interviewed and quoted me in the piece) focuses on billionaire David Rubenstein, whose self-proclaimed "patriotic philanthropy" helped repair the Washington Monument after an earthquake and build a gallery to house the Magna Carta, among other things. In his piece, MacGillis offers a detailed history on the loophole and the rise of Rubinstein through the ranks of America's wealthiest citizens, but he fails to convey the important truth about the "Billionaire loophole," which is that as commendable as Mr. Rubenstein's giving may be, it is no justification for a tax loophole that benefits only a few thousand millionaires and billionaires.
On one hand, Rubinstein uses his wealth to preserve various artifacts of American history. On the other, he uses his wealth to convince lawmakers to maintain a preferential and fundamentally unfair tax status for himself and other millionaires and billionaires. There's nothing patriotic or philanthropic about subverting the fabric of our democracy.
MacGillis does not go far enough in detailing the extent of this corruption as it relates to carried interest. He does note how Rubenstein and other private equity fund managers worked to block Senate attempts to kill the loophole and quotes John Boehner, who when asked about Republican congressman Dave Camp's 2014 effort to overhaul the tax code and kill carried interest replied, "Blah, blah, blah." But he makes no mention of the fact that Boehner's former Chief of Staff Mike Sommers was recently named president of the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC), a trade association for Wall Street fund managers that is at the center of the fight to defend the carried interest loophole.
He also fails to mention that Ken Mehlman, former Chair of the Republican National Committee, is the Chair of the PEGCC. It's pretty clear that private equity leaders understand there is no intellectually justifiable reason to keep the loophole open, so they are pulling in top influence peddlers to do the job for them. If the issue runs deep, MacGillis's piece doesn't reach its depths.
It doesn't do to well in the shallows either. The basic premise of the article deserves reexamination. MacGillis asserts that the loophole "helps" Rubenstein perform philanthropic acts by giving him more money with which to perform laudable acts, but if Rubenstein's net worth is $2.6 billion, his gift of $7.5 million to help repair the Washington Monument amounted to only 0.29% of his net worth. This is the equivalent of a person with a net worth of $100,000 giving away only $290. It is proverbial chump change to a billionaire.
And can we consider the great hypocrisy of Rubenstein paying to repair the Washington Monument? General George Washington led a war, costing thousands upon thousands of lives, that was waged over the very issue of unjust taxation. Two hundred and thirty years later, the cancer of money in politics -- as epitomized by the gross wealth and political power of players like Rubenstein -- threatens to destroy that very same democracy. People like Rubenstein metastasize that cancer.
This brand of injustice deserves a much stronger treatment than was provided in MacGillis' piece. The carried interest loophole is the poster child for the problem of money in politics. This issue cuts to the core of our democracy. It requires journalistic straight-shooting, not equivocation. If Americans are to have any faith in our government, leaders must close this loophole immediately. Stalling its closure is tantamount to subverting our democracy. Rather than relying on "patriotic philanthropy" to save the Washington Monument, we should make every effort to actually realize the fundamental principles for which our first president fought.
The Patriotic Millionaires is a group of high-net worth Americans who share a profound concern about the destabilizing level of inequality in America. Our work centers on the two things that matter most in a capitalist democracy: power and money. Our goal is to ensure that the country's political economy is structured to meet the needs of regular Americans, rather than just millionaires. We focus on three "first" principles: a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens.
(202) 446-0489"The most corrupt family ever is profiting from all of the death and destruction Trump is responsible for," said one critic.
There's no end in sight to President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran, and two of the president's children appear ready to cash in.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are investing in a Florida-based drone company called Powerus that "is vying to meet fresh demand from the Pentagon" for drones that started when the Trump administration banned foreign-made drones and drone components from the US in December.
The company will soon be going public by merging with Aureus Greenway Holdings, a publicly traded golf-course holding company that is also backed by the Trumps, and is expected to make its debut on the Nasdaq stock exchange in the coming months.
"Investors in the deal include one of the Trumps’ investment vehicles, American Ventures," reported the Journal, "and Unusual Machines, a drone components company where Donald Trump Jr. is a shareholder and advisory board member... Powerus is also a customer of Unusual Machines."
In an interview with the Journal, Powerus CEO Andrew Fox predicted robust demand for his company's products, commenting that the drone market "is certainly going to grow faster than, say, golf courses are."
Eric Trump confirmed and defended his investment in the drone firm, replying to the Journal in a social media post that "I happen to believe drones will be a much better investment than companies that still print newspapers."
Many critics, however, accused the two eldest Trump sons of seeking to profit off a war started by their own father. As the New York Times reported on Saturday, drones have become "a defining feature" of the Iran war, as they have been used by both sides in the conflict to launch explosives at targets at a fraction of what traditional missile barrages would cost.
"Rushing to cash in on Daddy's failed war before they've even gotten Barron and Kai to enlist," wrote journalist Marcy Wheeler. "Truly deplorable behavior, but what we expect from these corrupt reprobates."
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato argued that the Trump sons' efforts to rake in cash from the war shouldn't be surprising.
"Always a money-making angle for the Trump family," Sabato wrote. "Why should the War with Iran be any different?"
Sabato's words were echoed by fellow political scientist Norman Ornstein, who observed "it’s always about the grift" when it comes to the Trump family.
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, argued that the Trump sons' drone investment should cast a pall across the entire Iran war venture.
"Reminder as Trump starts wars, sells weapons and bombs everyone," D'Arrigo wrote. "The Trump family has a military drone company with military contracts, currently vying to meet Pentagon demand after the Trump administration recently banned new Chinese drones. The most corrupt family ever is profiting from all of the death and destruction Trump is responsible for."
In 2025, at least two companies backed by Trump Jr. received contracts collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars from the US Department of Defense.
Kedric Payne, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, said in an interview with the Financial Times last year that the government deals scored by Trump Jr.-backed companies look ethically dubious even if the president’s son didn’t directly use his influence to procure them.
“Presidents are expected to avoid even the appearance that they are using their office to financially benefit themselves or their family,” he said. “While we do not know for certain if, or how, the president may have influenced this loan, it falls under the cloud of conflicts of interest we have seen throughout this administration.”
"No telling what a military that engages in a monthslong killing spree outside the law might do," said one policy expert.
With the Trump administration's unprovoked war on Iran spiraling out of control, sending oil prices skyrocketing and leading to war crimes allegations against the US, the public's attention has largely shifted away from the White House's bombings of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean—but the killings of six men on Sunday made clear that the administration has no intention of ending its deadly attacks on boats it claims, without providing evidence, are involved in drug trafficking.
US Southern Command said in a social media post Sunday evening that at the direction of Gen. Francis Donovan, it had struck a vessel "operated by designated terrorist organizations."
The announcement echoed previous communications about lethal boat strikes since last September, claiming that the vessel "was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations," but pointing to no evidence the US forces used to make that determination.
The bombing was the 42nd strike carried out by the Trump administration in six months, according to Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America.
The New York Times reported that at least 156 people have now been killed in the boat strikes, while Isacson placed the number at 158. He emphasized that the victims' "guilt for a noncapital crime" remains unknown.
Drug trafficking in the Latin America region has typically been treated as a criminal offense, with US law enforcement agencies sometimes working with the Coast Guard to intercept boats suspected of carrying illicit substances to the US, arresting those on board, and conviscating the drugs.
Under President Donald Trump's second administration, the Department of Defense has insisted boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific pose an imminent threat to the US and that an influx of drugs from Latin America qualifies as an attack on US soil.
The deadly bombings the Pentagon has carried out as a result have led legal experts to accuse Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others involved in the strikes of war crimes and murder.
Trump claimed to Congress in October that the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela, but Congress has not authorized attacks on boats or inside Venezuela.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have introduced war powers resolutions to stop the attacks from continuing, but they have been voted down, with the vast majority of Republicans rejecting them. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined the GOP in voting down one of the resolutions in the Senate.
A day before the latest strike, Trump met with Latin American leaders at the "Shield of the Americans" summit in the Dominican Republic and urged them to join the United States' fight against drug cartels, calling them an "unacceptable threat to national security."
Forces from the US and Ecuador also joined in carrying out military operations against criminal organizations in the South American country last week.
Although Trump's claims that drugs are being trafficked to the US from Venezuela and that the country's government was participating in the criminal enterprise have underpinned the boat bombings, Venezuela has not been found to be a major source of drugs that arrive in the US. After invading the country in January, the president quickly pivoted to discussions on taking control of Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, suggested Sunday that Trump's continued boat strikes show the White House is unlikely to be bound by international law as it continues to threaten countries in Latin America, such as Cuba, and carries out its war on Iran.
"The slaughter at sea continues," said Finucane. "No telling what a military that engages in a monthslong killing spree outside the law might do."
On Friday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is scheduled to hold its first-ever hearing on the legality of the US boat strikes, following a push for action from human rights groups.
"The incendiary effects of white phosphorous can cause death or cruel injuries that result in lifelong suffering.”
Israel is illegally using white phosphorous in civilian areas amid its new onslaught in Lebanon, putting residents at risk of death or life-altering injury, according to a report released Monday by Human Rights Watch.
The human rights group said it has verified and geolocated seven photos showing airburst white phosphorus munitions being deployed on March 3 over homes in the southern Lebanese town of Yohmor.
Images also showed civil defense workers responding to fires in at least two homes and one car in that area.
White phosphorus, a chemical substance that ignites when exposed to oxygen, is considered unlawfully indiscriminate under international law when deployed in civilian areas, as it can result in homes, agricultural areas, and other civilian infrastructure catching on fire.
“The Israeli military’s unlawful use of white phosphorus over residential areas is extremely alarming and will have dire consequences for civilians,” said Ramzi Kaiss, a Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The incendiary effects of white phosphorous can cause death or cruel injuries that result in lifelong suffering.”
Human Rights Watch said it has not verified whether anyone was in the area at the time the white phosphorus was deployed or whether it resulted in any injuries.
It is not the first time Israel has been documented deploying white phosphorus in Lebanon. In June 2024, Human Rights Watch verified at least 17 instances of the chemical substance being deployed across south Lebanon since October 2023.
As of May 28, 2024, Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health reported that at least 173 people had suffered injuries from white phosphorus since October 2023—including respiratory issues like asphyxiation.
“Israel should immediately halt this practice and states providing Israel with weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, should immediately suspend military assistance and arms sales and push Israel to stop firing such munitions in residential areas,” Kaiss said.
Yohmor was one of more than 100 villages where Israel ordered civilians to "immediately" evacuate last week—orders that have resulted in the mass displacement of more than 300,000 people from their homes, according to a Friday report from the Norwegian Refugee Council.
On March 3, residents of Yohmor and other villages given evacuation orders were told by Avichay Adraee, Israel’s Arabic military spokesperson, that they “should immediately evacuate [their homes] and move away from the villages to a distance of at least 1,000 meters outside the village to open land.”
Due to the "sweeping nature" of its orders, Human Rights Watch has warned that "their purpose is not to protect civilians, especially in the context of recent large-scale displacement of civilians in Lebanon."
The report notes that between September and November 2024, more than 1.2 million people were displaced in Lebanon as a result of attacks across the country. Many, who were able to return home following a ceasefire in November 2024, have been displaced once more.
Since Israel and the United States launched a war against Iran last week, resulting in retaliation from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Israel has pushed further into Lebanon, carrying out attacks on several villages across southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut.
"Contrary to [Israel's] claims, the strikes are not aimed at military personnel or installations, but rather at residential homes, medical responders, healthcare infrastructure, as well as women and children," said Lebanese Health Minister Rakan Nasreddine on Sunday.
Since March 2, he said that Israeli airstrikes across Lebanon have killed 394 people, including 83 children and 42 women, while wounding 1,130 people, including 254 children and 274 women.
"The number is still increasing," he added.