

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.

The joint Syrian-Russian military operation has been using incendiary weapons, which burn their victims and start fires, in civilian areas of Syria in violation of international law, Human Rights Watch said today. Incendiary weapons have been used at least 18 times over the past nine weeks, including in attacks on the opposition-held areas in the cities of Aleppo and Idlib on August 7, 2016.
Countries meeting at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva on August 29, 2016 should condemn the use of air-dropped incendiary weapons in civilian areas of Syria in violation of the treaty's Protocol III on incendiary weapons. They should encourage Syria to join the protocol and press Syria and Russia to immediately stop using incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should also review the protocol and take steps to strengthen it.
"The Syrian government and Russia should immediately stop attacking civilian areas with incendiary weapons," said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. "These weapons inflict horrible injuries and excruciating pain, so all countries should condemn their use in civilian areas."
A Human Rights Watch review of photographs and videos recorded at the time of attack and of the remnants afterward indicates there were at least 18 incendiary weapon attacks on opposition-held areas in Aleppo and Idlib governorates between June 5 and August 10. At least 12 civilians were reported wounded by witnesses and first responders in five of these attacks.
The visual evidence that incendiary weapons were used includes the distinctive mid-air displays created by the bright burning trails of air-dropped incendiary weapons containing ZAB-series incendiary submunitions. Other indicators include the small but intense fires created by each submunition over the time it takes to burn out as well as markings on the bomb casings and submunitions.
Local activists, human rights organizations, first responders, and media organizations have reported the use of incendiary weapons on at least 40 other occasions, but no photographs and video footage were available, so Human Rights Watch could not conclusively determine if incendiary weapons were involved.
Incendiary weapons produce heat and fire through the chemical reaction of a flammable substance, causing excruciatingly painful burns that are difficult to treat. The weapons also start fires that are hard to extinguish, destroying civilian objects and infrastructure.
An incendiary weapon attack on the opposition-held Idlib city on the evening of August 7 wounded at least two civilians, witnesses said.
"I saw with my own eyes two strikes, both 'phosphorus'--blocks of flame were falling from the sky," said. Ala' Abdel Aziz Hmeidan, an Idlib resident. "After that, there was a strike with a missile carrying cluster bombs. It was tragic, buildings were on fire, rocks were on fire." He said the area contains residential buildings and that there were no armed groups in the vicinity.
Syria Civil Defense, an opposition search-and-rescue volunteer group, reported an incendiary weapon attack on the residential area in al-Mashhad in opposition-held east Aleppo city at around 4 p.m. on August 7 that injured a child. Photographs taken immediately after the attack by Aleppo resident Malek Tarboush show at least four incendiary submunitions burning on the ground in a narrow street that contains at least one shop. Human Rights Watch was unable to identify the specific type of incendiary weapon used in the attack.
Incendiary weapon attacks in Syria have increased significantly since the Russian Federation began its joint military operation with the Syrian government on September 30, 2015. There is compelling evidence that Russian government aircraft are being used to deliver incendiary weapons or at least are participating with Syrian government aircraft in attacks using incendiary weapons.
More than a dozen countries have condemned or expressed concern at the use of incendiary weapons in Syria since 2013, including Colombia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, and the US in recent weeks. The other states that have condemned the use of incendiary weapons in Syria are Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.
"The disgraceful incendiary weapon attacks in Syria show an abject failure to adhere to international law restricting incendiary weapons," Goose said. "The resulting civilian harm demonstrates the inadequacy of existing law on incendiary weapons, which should be strengthened urgently. From a humanitarian standpoint, a global ban on incendiary weapons would provide the best solution."
For more information about the incendiary weapons protocol, details of the recent attacks, and evidence of the use of incendiary weapons, please see below.
Goose and Human Rights Watch arms advocacy director Mary Wareham are attending the week-long CCW meeting that opens in Geneva on August 29, 2016.
The Incendiary Weapons Protocol
Russia is a party to the incendiary weapons protocol and has acknowledged the "significant humanitarian damage" caused by incendiary weapons in Syria, which it attributed to "improper use," in a November 2015 letter to Human Rights Watch.
Russia has not responded to criticism of its apparent involvement in recent incendiary weapon attacks in Syria. In November 2015, Russia urged "faithful observation" of international law relating to incendiary weapons, but rejected calls to revisit and strengthen Protocol III on incendiary weapons of the conventional weapons treaty as "counterproductive."
The Syrian government has ignored calls to join Protocol III, which 113 countries are party to, including Russia and the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The protocol bans the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons in areas with "concentrations of civilians," but permits the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons.
Protocol III defines "concentrations of civilians" broadly as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees."
The treaty's member countries should support the call to revisit and amend Protocol III to fix the significant loophole permitting use of ground-launched incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should revisit the definition of incendiary weapons in Protocol III as it is overly narrow and fails adequately to deal with multi-purpose incendiary munitions such as white phosphorus. These and other inconsistencies have undermined the protocol's effectiveness and failed to deter use of incendiary weapons over the past 35 years, Human Rights Watch said.
Idlib city, Idlib governorate, August 7, 2016
Syrian or Russian fixed-wing jet aircraft dropped incendiary weapons in an attack on the opposition-held city of Idlib on the evening of Sunday, August 7, wounding up to 10 people, witnesses reported. On August 9, Human Rights Watch interviewed four local residents who separately witnessed the attack, including two first responders.
Mouti' Jalal, a volunteer with Syria Civil Defense in Idlib told Human Rights Watch:
I was at home in Sarmin, Idlib. I heard volunteers radioing in about two strikes. They were saying it was phosphorus. I grabbed my camera and was on my way. I saw fire falling from the sky. But couldn't get to the area because the roads were under attack. The fire was so bright, you could see it from outside the city and everyone saw it. I had a clear view of the phosphorus falling on my way but unfortunately my camera was slow and couldn't get a picture at the right moment.
An Idlib resident, Mohammad Taj Al-Din Othman, provided Human Rights Watch with photos he took of the attack that contain metadata showing they were taken at 23:03 and 23:08 local time on August 7, 2016. Othman said:
The first missile disintegrated in the sky and fell down in pieces. It wasn't too loud but it led to a huge fire as soon as it hit the ground. Other explosions followed. And it made the fire worse. I could clearly see the flames bursting. Within 10 minutes, there were more strikes. The fire was unbelievable, it turned night into day. Across fifty square meters. And it kept getting worse for five minutes.
A second Syria Civil Defense (SCD) Idlib volunteer who asked not to be named said:
It was night and calm; we could clearly hear warplanes circling. It was a frightening sound. I also saw a missile get launched from the plane, a bright spot in the sky, along with a terrible blast. SCD was unable to determine the nature of the weapon used but we know for a fact that it was highly flammable.
Video and photos recorded at the time of attack and afterward of the remnants show the use of RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM bombs, an incendiary weapon that delivers 117 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary submunitions. The witness accounts and visual evidence confirm this was an incendiary weapon attack.
Each ZAB-2.5SM submunition burns for up to 10 minutes, starting fires that are hard to extinguish. Numerous photographs and videos from the Idlib attack clearly shows individual fires between residential buildings started by burning submunitions.
The ZAB-2.5SM submunitions delivered by RBK-500 bombs contain a small bursting charge to ignite the flammable substance as they are released from the bomb in mid-air. The fires started by incendiary weapons can also cause secondary explosions when they burn objects on the ground.
Jalal, the Syria Civil Defense volunteer, said that the multiple airstrikes that evening wounded approximately 10 people. He told Human Rights Watch: "Some had burns, but most had just concussions and fractures."
Yahya A'arja, the Idlib director of Syria Civil Defense, who responded to one of the August 7 attack sites, said the incendiary weapons "fell on the street, luckily not on homes, and only burned cars." He said that "the smell led to suffocation, injuring two. No burns at all, thank God. Only asphyxiation from the smell because it wasn't on their bodies." The victims were treated at the scene. "Oxygen therapy was administered inside the ambulance," A'arja said.
According to the unnamed Syria Civil Defense volunteer, the airstrikes consisted of four attacks [including] on "a large crowded residential neighborhood of Idlib city known as al-Dabbit." He said, "I can confirm that there is no military presence in that area."
Othman provided Human Rights Watch with a list of four locations in the city that were attacked by incendiary weapons on August 7:
Othman said during the attack on the university's faculty of humanities at al-Dabbit, incendiary bombs "fell between houses and people were terrified and started panicking, they even went out of their homes." He described Hay al-Jam'aa as "a typical residential area" that was hit first by incendiary weapons that "fell in the middle of the street" rather than on homes, thereby minimizing damage. He said the university still functions, but there were no classes at the time of the evening attack. The area also has a small supermarket and a coffee shop. He said the al-Konsorwa industrial area that was attacked has a factory that is no longer used and is "not residential per se but there are many displaced people there." It "used to be a Syrian army checkpoint."
Othman said that "armed groups are stationed around the city but they weren't targeted" in the incendiary weapon attacks on August 7. He said "the strikes were repetitive and you could hear the plane in the sky, it was very loud and continuous. I only saw the plane when it launched the first missile. I think it was Russian. And it was just one plane."
Two teams of Syria Civil Defense volunteers from Idlib extinguished the fires started by the attack and gathered and destroyed remnants of the incendiary weapons even though they had no expertise with them. Jalal said they were told to use gravel to extinguish the fire because "water makes it worse."
A Syria Civil Defense volunteer who responded to the attack told Human Rights Watch:
The fire was vast, spreading hundreds of meters, difficult to put out. It reacted with water so we had to use other material, like foam and powder, even gravel. The fire took over everything, houses, cars, oil tanks, and even grass. We heard explosions. It was huge, it required immense efforts to extinguish. The tall, crowded buildings did not make things easy. It took us around an hour to control the situation. It was so bright you could see the buildings as if was daylight. It was absolutely abnormal. Honestly, words cannot describe it.
Technical Background and Recent Attacks
Since November 2012, Human Rights Watch has recorded the use of four types of incendiary weapons in Syria, all ZAB-series (Zazhigatelnaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba) incendiary aircraft bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union:
ZAB-series bombs contain a substance believed to be thermite that ignites while falling, leading witnesses to describe the incendiary submunitions as "fireballs." It is not napalm or white phosphorus, which are notorious flammable substances used in other incendiary weapons.
The majority of witness accounts collected by Human Right Watch and video evidence indicate that fixed-wing jet aircraft and helicopters have been used to deliver air-dropped incendiary weapons in Syria. There has been at least one incident involving the use of a surface-launched incendiary weapon.
The Syrian government has used factory-made incendiary weapons since November 2012, particularly air-dropped bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union such as RBK-250 series bombs and ZAB-100-105 bombs. Syrian government forces have also used air-dropped weapons consisting of improvised canisters or "barrel bombs" filled with a napalm-like flammable substance.
Footage broadcasted by Russian state media on June 18 shows RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary bombs mounted on a Su-34 fighter-ground attack aircraft at the Russian air base at Hmeymim, southeast of Latakia city, in Syria. Only the Russian air force operates this type of aircraft in Syria.
Documented Incendiary Weapon Attacks, June 5-August 10, 2016
Date | Location | Casualties (source) | Type of Incendiary Weapon | Visual Confirmation |
August 10 | Qubtan al-Jabal, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | Photo: Remnants |
August 7 | Idlib city, Idlib | 2-10 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | Photo: Remnants |
August 7 | Aleppo city, Aleppo | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | Not available | |
July 7 | Kafr Hamrah, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 26 | Saraqib, Idlib | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 26 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | Media N/A |
June 24 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 23 | Khan al-Asal, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 22 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 22 | Kafr Naya or Urum al-Kubrah, Aleppo | 2 reported wounded (SCD, witness) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 (approximate) | Hraytan (Haritan), Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 19 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 16 | Ma'ar Shoreen, Idlib | None reported | Not available | Photos on file |
June 15 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 11 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | 6 reported wounded (Smart News Agency) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 10 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 5 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM |
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"The Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history."
The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled out a proposed rule that would further restrict access to the United States' largest and most effective anti-hunger program, taking benefits from more than 6 million people—including many children—as grocery prices continue to rise and food bank demand surges nationwide.
The US Department of Agriculture's proposal, published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, targets a policy known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows states to deem recipients of other federal benefits eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Experts say the policy reduces administrative burdens for states and individuals by streamlining the SNAP application process.
Under the new rule, households with annual gross incomes above 130 percent of the poverty line—roughly $35,500 per year for a family of three—would lose SNAP benefits, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank.
"In the midterm elections, the public indicated they want their elected officials to focus on making life affordable. Yet the Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history," said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at CBPP. "These attacks are part of the administration’s broader policy agenda that has raised costs and made it harder for working families to afford their basic needs, all to partially pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts heavily weighted to the wealthy and fund its extreme and aggressive immigration detention apparatus."
According to the Trump administration's own analysis, the proposed rule would strip SNAP benefits from 3.2 million households—or around 6.3 million individuals—in fiscal year 2029, the first year the rule would take full effect. The USDA's proposal is open to public comment for just 30 days.
The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) warned in a statement Tuesday that the impact of the rule "could be far worse" than the administration's projection, pointing to the disastrous and ongoing effects of SNAP cuts enacted under the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law. An estimated 5.5 million people—including roughly 1.5 million children—have lost SNAP benefits since the budget law's enactment, an outcome that Trump administration officials have celebrated.
Condemning the new proposal as "unconscionable," FRAC warned the rule's impacts would extend beyond the SNAP program, including by reducing access to free school meals, "making children hungry at home and at school."
"Children who lose SNAP are no longer automatically eligible for free school meals. Some would no longer be eligible for free school meals; others would be at risk of falling through the cracks when they go through the school meal application process," the group said. "The proposed rule would also negatively affect babies and toddlers, and pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding parents who are automatically income eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), because they participate in SNAP. This rule would make it more difficult for households that lose SNAP to apply for WIC. Losing both SNAP and WIC would harm hundreds of thousands of infants and young children during their initial stages of development."
BBCE has long been a target of right-wing policy architects and Republican lawmakers. Project 2025, the policy blueprint released by the conservative Heritage Foundation, called for reforming the policy.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, condemned the USDA's proposal as "heartless and cruel," warning it would make it harder for families "to meet basic needs" and undercut states' efforts to "streamline federal programs."
"SNAP is a highly effective and efficient program when it is allowed to work as designed," said Craig. "Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the outgoing Republican majority in Congress have undermined the program’s integrity at every turn, harming millions of vulnerable Americans in the process."
"Jeffries didn't even whip the vote," one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.
The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie's attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican's resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.
The resolution seeks to impeach Hegseth for his role in waging President Donald Trump's war on Iran in contravention of the War Powers Act and apparent war crimes committed by US forces in the conflict, including the February massacre of 156 people, at least 120 of them children, in a missile strike on an elementary school in the southern city of Minab.
Massie's resolution also accuses Hegseth of "extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters" as part of Trump's boat-bombing spree; the invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; waging an illegal war on Yemen that has killed hundreds of civilians; and suppressing free speech at the Pentagon.
The 11 Democrats who were not present for the vote are: Julia Brownley (Calif.), Lou Correa (Calif.), Laura Gillen (NY), Steven Horsford (Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Haley Stevens (Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (Fla.). Correa is recovering from an undisclosed medical procedure and cannot travel.
Seven Republicans also did not vote. Observers noted there was a chance for Democrats to keep Massie's impeachment bid alive if more of them attended the session and voted.
Jeffries (D-NY)—who backs impeaching Hegseth—"didn’t think it was important to make sure 11 Democrats didn’t skip the Hegseth impeachment vote," author Jared Yates Sexton wrote on Bluesky.
Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manríquez accused Democrats of having "a serious leadership problem."
Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker wrote on social media that Jeffries "is arguing that he should be the leader of the Democrats—and then, as the current leader, he couldn’t get enough Democrats to show up to impeach Pete Hegseth."
On Tuesday morning, Hegseth brushed off the impeachment attempt as a "farce" and "political spectacle."
"None of these are high crimes or misdemeanors," he said of the allegations against him. "They're partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military."
Hegseth also said he "stand[s] behind every one of" the massacres and killings listed in the resolution, and that he "was proud to execute them, and... would do it again tomorrow.”
Asked by Politico's Riley Rogerson about the 11 Democrats' absence, Jeffries said: "I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning."
While numerous Democrats said they would renew efforts to impeach Hegseth once they're in control of Congress, many observers pointed to Tuesday's vote as further evidence that new party leadership is needed.
"Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to 'vote their conscience,' and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up," writer Laura Bassett wrote on social media. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Similar sentiment is dogging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whose bid to become majority leader is opposed by a growing number of his colleagues. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who asserted that the midterm election "was about change," and that "people want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck.”
"I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," Democratic Texas Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa said of AI companies' proliferating data centers.
Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest person, is seeking a property tax break for a proposed $24 billion SpaceX data center and gas-fired power plant in South Texas, where residents are mobilizing against the multicentibillionaire's expanding industrial footprint.
Politico reported Tuesday that commissioners in the border town of Starbase—which has around 500 residents and was incorporated in 2021 via a petition from SpaceX employees—is set to consider a proposed property tax abatement and economic development agreement for the company's facilities during a December 9 meeting. Two of the town's three commissioners are also SpaceX employees.
The data center and power plant project would occupy more than 400 acres near the Port of Brownsville, on land that the city of Brownsville agreed to de-annex in August at SpaceX's request.
In that deal, Brownsville agreed to remove 444.45 acres from its jurisdiction in exchange for SpaceX contributing up to $220 million toward regional water and wastewater infrastructure. The deal includes an initial $40 million payment and six subsequent quarterly payouts of $30 million.
Disannexation became a critical issue following Brownsville commissioners' unanimous vote last week in favor of a 90-day moratorium on permits for data center construction.
According to KRGV, SpaceX vice president Sheila McCorkle told Brownsville's six commissioners the company wanted the land removed from the city's jurisdiction to allow infrastructure development "quicker and more economically" than if it remained part of Brownsville. McCorkle also touted the move as an opportunity to boost growth and help the water supply in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, a semi-arid region suffering a severe water crisis.
That crisis is largely due to overconsumption of water—a resource data centers require in massive quantities. SpaceX has projected that its Starbase operations will eventually require approximately 2 million gallons of water per day.
Many local residents oppose both the proposed tax break and the data center/power plant project.
"Please pass a full 180-day data center moratorium. And please remember that this is supposed to be a community-led environmental task force," South Texas Environmental Justice Center co-founder Bekah Hinojosa told commissioners during a November 4 Brownsville City Commission meeting.
"You need to make sure that you're taking every possible step to ensure meaningful public input throughout this data center moratorium," she continued. "We don't know what SpaceX is building on the 444 acres. It's frankly terrifying."
Attorney Jacqueline Morales told the commissioners: "The moratorium will not make us forget that you de-annexed 444 acres of land to SpaceX, which is now building a data center. This community has been sounding the alarm for months, only for this commission to ignore us and pretend like it knows better."
"You either work to protect residents of Brownsville or you don't," Morales added. "There is no middle ground here."
The Brownsville dispute is part of the nationwide backlash against data centers, which consume enormous quantities of electricity and water while frequently seeking taxpayer-funded incentives.
Musk has met similar resistance in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's administration has offered SpaceX an estimated $27.5 billion incentive package to construct a massive launch facility on 125,000 acres of coastal land in Vermilion Parish. According to the Louisiana Illuminator, nearly $24 billion of the package consists of a 25-year property tax exemption.
The proposed deal has outraged many local residents, more than 1,000 of whom submitted comments to the Federal Aviation Administration expressing concerns about the project's environmental consequences, including damage to fragile wetlands, wildlife habitats, and the rapidly eroding Louisiana coastline.
"I'm not anti-SpaceX," small farmer Karol Bourque told The Current in September. "It's all the secrecy, the NDAs, the laws protecting all these powerful people and companies."
Ironically, Musk relocated SpaceX and other companies from California to Texas in recent years, seeking lower taxes and less regulation. During the 2026 midterm election cycle, he reportedly spent around $224 million supporting Texas Republican candidates and political committees, including Ken Paxton for the US Senate and Greg Abbott for governor.
Both lost amid Democrats' historic "blue tsunami." Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico has explicitly targeted Musk's extreme wealth.
"We should tax trillionaires out of existence," he declared last year, warning that "the reason poverty exists in the wealthiest country on earth isn't because we can't feed the poor—it's because we can't satisfy the rich."
Abbott was beaten by Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who has called for a moratorium on new data center approvals and has pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When I am governor I will issue a moratorium—a ban—on all data center approvals until laws can be passed by the Legislature to protect Texans," Hinojosa said in October.
She also pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"It is not that I hate data centers. I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," she said.
Democrats also won control of the Texas House of Representatives. But even before the "blue tsunami," momentum was building in Austin to reverse the state’s formerly welcoming approach to AI data centers. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have signaled support for rolling back tax breaks for the industry in the upcoming legislative session. Monday marked the opening of the bill-filing period ahead of the session, which is scheduled to begin on January 12.
Among the proposals, state Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-21) introduced legislation barring counties and other local governments from granting property tax abatements to data center operators. Two additional bills filed in the Texas House would eliminate sales tax exemptions on electricity consumed by data centers and restrict counties’ ability to enter into nondisclosure agreements with the companies.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry."
Progressives are demanding that Rep. Haley Stevens be expelled from the Democratic Party over the Michigan Democrat's last-minute decision to rescind her endorsement of Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed.
Just two days before the 2026 midterm elections, Stevens announced that she was supporting Republican Mike Rogers in the US Senate race in Michigan, despite pledging to back El-Sayed after he defeated her in the state's Democratic primary months earlier.
Stevens' surprise endorsement of Rogers led to a mass staff exodus, including her longtime chief of staff. Politico reported that Stevens had been spotted in the Republicans' cloakroom in the US House of Representatives on Monday, and her office door was locked throughout the day.
Levi Teitel, communications director of Progress Michigan, said Stevens' actions merited her being forced out of the Democratic Party.
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry," said Teitel. "Her capriciousness is what’s led to this: flipping to Rogers just two days before polls opened on Election Day without thinking through how she would be able to represent her constituents in her last few weeks in office."
Stevens is still representing her district until January 3, 2027, when Rep.-elect Jeremy Moss (D-Mich.) is slated to take over.
Regardless, Teitel said Stevens' actions are "nothing short of a dereliction of duty," adding that House Democrats "have a responsibility to hold Rep. Stevens accountable and expel her from the caucus."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is also leaving Congress next year after a 40-year career, cautioned her party against expelling Stevens while speaking with reporters on Tuesday.
"We have about... two more weeks of being in the Congress," said Pelosi, "so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point."
Nancy Pelosi on Kicking Haley Stevens Out of the Caucus:We have a few more weeks of being in Congress, so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point.I was disappointed. I conveyed that to her. I want to be helpful to her in terms of how she deals with this, but I’m not supporting kicking her out.Let’s focus on the very positive
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
The California Democrat added that she was "disappointed" in Stevens for endorsing Rogers, but emphasized that she's "not supporting kicking her out of the caucus."
Critics of Pelosi, however, found her position unconvincing and a testament to the failure of Establishment wing of the party that has long been hostile to progressives and accommodating to figures like Stevens.
“Pelosi refusing to kick Haley Stevens out of the caucus because ‘there’s only a few weeks left’ is everything people hate about DC,” said journalist Saad Abedine, in response to the former speaker’s remarks. “Zero accountability, total protection for insiders, and a smile telling us to ‘focus on the positive.’ Utterly absurd.”
“The ‘big-D’ Democratic Party needs some ‘little-D’ democracy,” said Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who conditioned his support for Jeffries on efforts to end the Iran War, cut off support for Israel, and end Citizens United.
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."

Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
If the Republican-controlled Senate is unable to confirm Michael LoSapio before the end of the current legislative session, Democrats could scrutinize his ties to the surveillance giant after they take the majority.
An executive with the company that's come under fire for its participation in President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda and his illegal war on Iran may serve as the latest link between the Silicon Valley firm and the White House.
As NextGov/FCW reported Monday night, the White House has nominated Michael LoSapio, the chief information security officer for software giant Palantir Technologies, to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security.
CISA oversees cybersecurity protections for agency networks, water systems, power grids, telecommunications networks, and other infrastructure. It has been without a permanent director for nearly two years and has faced wide-scale layoffs and resignations under the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, three major cybersecurity breaches at the FBI, the Pentagon, and DHS have been reported in the past three months.
The company LoSapio has worked for since 2017 has become increasingly intertwined with the Trump administration since the president took office in 2025.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, Palantir has provided "mission-critical software infrastructure" for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—specifically for the development of an artificial intelligence pilot program that's been linked to healthcare delays for seniors.
The company, co-founded by right-wing Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, has also allowed its Enhanced Leads Identification and Targeting for Enforcement system to identify people for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to target for Trump's violent mass deportation campaign, in which tens of thousands of people have been sent to "third countries" that they have no connection to and where they may be at risk of persecution.
Palantir has also received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts as it has developed a "mega-database" full of Americans' private taxpayer information.
As NextGov reported, Trump could be forced to renominate LoSapio after the new legislative session begins on January 3, if Congress is unable to confirm the nominee before the end of the current session, during which lawmakers will be busy debating a continuation of government funding and defense spending.
In that case, the new Democratic majority in the US Senate could potentially scrutinize LoSapio's history with the company that lawmakers, including Se. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have pushed to investigate.
"Sen. Wyden has a number of questions about Palantir's work to facilitate the Trump-Vance abuse of government data that he intends to ask again as chairman of the Finance Committee," an aide for Wyden told NPR this week. "If Palantir is not responsive next year, compulsory processes will be on the table."
"This isn't strength, it's recklessness. It's illegal, and someone should be held accountable, and we should start with Secretary Pete Hegseth," said US Rep. Sara Jacobs.
Shortly after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared during a Tuesday press conference that he was proud of the alleged war crimes he's committed, a Democratic lawmaker representing one of the largest military communities in the US came out in favor of his impeachment.
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), who represents a significant portion of San Diego, explained why she would vote to advance Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) articles of impeachment against Hegseth in a Tuesday social media post.
In supporting Hegseth's removal from office, Jacobs cited "the illegal Iran war, illegal strikes in Yemen (where he mishandled classified information via Signal), and over 200 murders in boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific," where the US military has targeted suspected drug trafficking vessels.
"He’s dangerous and needs to go," said Jacobs.
Jacobs then took to the floor of the US House of Representatives to make her case against the embattled former Fox News host.
"I'm so proud to represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country," she said. "It's my community, my neighbors and friends, who've been shipped off to fight Secretary Hegseth's reckless war in Iran. So I take it personally when our leaders are cavalier with our servicemembers' lives. I take it personally when our leaders ask our servicemembers to take illegal action in Iran and Venezuela and Yemen."
Jacobs on Hegseth Impeachment: This isn't strength. It's recklessness. It's illegal. And someone should be held accountable. And we should start with Secretary Pete Hegseth. https://t.co/Mw7knLqW0y
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
Jacobs added that Hegseth's actions haven't made the US more secure, but have instead resulted in "a girl's elementary school bombed" in Minab Iran, and "hundreds of people murdered in boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific."
"This isn't strength, it's recklessness," Jacobs emphasized. "It's illegal, and someone should be held accountable, and we should start with Secretary Pete Hegseth."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) explained during a Tuesday interview with CNN why she would be joining Jacobs in voting for Hegseth's impeachment.
"This is not about policy disagreements," Jayapal explained. "I sit on the [House] Judiciary Committee and I can tell you that the Constitution was designed to give Congress the power, the sole power and authority, over war."
"Pete Hegseth has ignored war powers resolutions," the Washington Democrat continued. "He never came to Congress, the president never came to Congress. He has presided over an illegal, unconstitutional war."
Rep. Jayapal: Pete Hegseth is a war criminal, and I don't use those words lightly https://t.co/TEIrnVrVJD
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
Jayapal said that, in addition to waging an illegal war, Hegseth has violated the US laws of armed conflict.
"Pete Hegseth is a war criminal," she said. "I don't use those words lightly. But he has literally presided over civilian casualties that were not necessary. He disbanded the office that is supposed to monitor civilian harm. He has conducted illegal boat strikes off of Venezuela."
Rep.-elect Richard Ojeda (D-NC), a retired US Army major, said during a Tuesday interview with MeidasTouch that Hegseth's boat bombing spree constituted war crimes.
"We don’t kill people in the Caribbean and just think it’s no big deal," Ojeda said. "We don’t bomb a school that kills... little girls and just say that that’s water under the bridge. It's not. Crimes have been committed."
Ojeda: It bothers me that we have so many people that like to rattle the drums of war, and they have no idea what the ramifications are.There have been a lot of things that have been done wrong that need to be addressed.You know, we don’t kill people in the Caribbean and just think it’s no big deal. We don’t bomb a school that kills 160-plus little girls and just say that that’s water under the bridge.Crimes have been committed
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
The House is scheduled to take up a procedural vote on the impeachment articles on Tuesday. If a majority votes to advance them, a full debate and final vote on impeaching Hegseth will likely occur on Wednesday.
“This election was about change," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he believes a member of the Senate Democratic caucus will emerge to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer for the majority leader post in the next Congress, the latest indication that the longtime—and deeply unpopular—Democratic leader might not get the coronation he expects.
“He’s not going to run unopposed, I don’t think,” Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats, told reporters, announcing he will not back Schumer's bid for majority leader. “This election was about change. People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Schumer, who has led the Senate Democratic caucus for close to a decade, has publicly expressed certainty that his party will elect him as majority leader following Democrats' midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP. Senate Democrats are expected to hold a secret-ballot election next month, and Schumer needs the support of a simple majority of Senate Democrats to win the vote.
.@SenSanders (I-VT) says he will not support Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader: "But in my view, the time is now for change and I will not be supporting Chuck to be re-elected as the Democratic leader." https://t.co/hGy4zPvDgS
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 10, 2026
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Schumer's aides "say he has locked down another term... having secured commitments of support from enough Democratic senators."
But a number of newly elected Democratic senators, as well as some veteran lawmakers, have publicly declined to endorse Schumer, raising the possibility of a viable challenge to his leadership.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the progressive favorite to challenge Schumer, said Monday that he is "in listening mode" on running for the leadership position. Last week, Van Hollen argued that Senate Democrats should not back Schumer without clear commitments to advance "a very bold kitchen table agenda."
"Working people have been screwed for way too long, and we need to unrig an economy that’s been built to serve billionaires and big corporations," said Van Hollen, a Medicare for All supporter and outspoken critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. "It’s not a time for incrementalism."
"After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic senator-elect from Michigan, said last week that he believes Van Hollen would "be an amazing Senate majority leader."
"Of course, that’s a choice he has to make about whether or not he wants to pursue that," said El-Sayed, one of several newly elected Democrats who have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post.
Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, and James Talarico of Texas have also said they want new leadership in the upper chamber.
Progressive advocacy groups and a machinists union with around 600,000 members are among those backing the newly elected Democrats' call for fresh leadership following the party's historic midterm wins.
“Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump," the advocacy group Indivisible wrote on social media last week. "After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
On Tuesday, RootsAction launched a campaign aimed at encouraging Van Hollen to challenge Schumer for the leadership post. The group said it sent mass emails urging supporters across the country to contact their senators and demand that they back Van Hollen.
"As the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer has been a devoted servant of corporatism, Big Tech, go-slow status-quo economics, and Israel-right-or-wrong policies—and he has the receipts (in the form of campaign cash) to prove it," RootsAction's nationwide email reads. "Even though voters across the country—not just Democrats—rejected those policies at the polls, Schumer will have even more power in January as the Senate Majority Leader... unless someone challenges him for that position."
"We may have lost this battle, but we have no doubt we’ll win the war to rein in extreme wealth—both here and around the world," said Patriotic Millionaires.
Bombarded by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of often misleading ads funded by tech titans and other monied interests, California voters narrowly rejected Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires, but proponents of the measure to fund vital social programs said they'll try again in 2028.
Prop 40 was defeated 52.8% to 47.2%, according to The Associated Press. Also known as the California Billionaire Tax, the ballot measure was sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) and would have imposed a 5% tax on the wealth of California residents and trusts worth more than $1 billion.
Proponents argued the tax would have generated tens of billions of dollars to help fund healthcare, food assistance, and public education programs facing funding pressures, including from cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other lifelines.
We’re disappointed to see Prop 40 lost in California.But all hope is not lost. We may have lost this battle, but we have no doubt we’ll win the war to rein in extreme wealth—both here and around the world.Read our full statement here: patrioticmillionaires.org/press/patrio...
[image or embed]
— Patriotic Millionaires (@patrioticmillionaires.org) November 10, 2026 at 9:56 AM
The "No on 40" campaign—including efforts supporting Propositions 41 and 42, a pair of anti-Prop 40 poison pills—was bankrolled by some of Silicon Valley's wealthiest figures, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who contributed upward of $100 million to a committee he established to defeat the measure.
Overall, billionaire opponents contributed approximately $378.4 million, compared with just $33.5 million raised by Prop 40 supporters, according to CalMatters.
“That is incredibly corrosive and corrupting to our democracy and our political system, and that’s been dominating the discussion here in California,” SEIU-UHW president Dan Regan told CalMatters.
Morris Pearl, a former managing director at the investment firm BlackRock who now chairs the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires, said he's "sad that the ballot measure ultimately fell short, but the attention about what happened in California has sparked not only a national and international conversation around inequality, but also about how billionaires are frightened by voters who very clearly want to shake up the economic status quo."
Initial polling showed 55% of California voters supporting Prop 40 shortly after its introduction last year, and the measure soon won the backing of prominent national figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
But Prop 40 was opposed by California's Democratic establishment, with Gov. Gavin Newsom, Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, and the mayors of most major cities coming out against the measure. So did the state NAACP, California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and other left-leaning groups.
The editors of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, San Jose Mercury News, and virtually every major newspaper in the state—the Sacramento Bee being the most notable exception—also urged voters to reject Prop 40.
The "No on 40" campaign's ads relied heavily on misleading scare tactics that portrayed the one-time tax on approximately 200 people as a threat to ordinary Californians. In one particularly deceptive AI-generated ad, bureaucrats terrorize suburban families, steal a bike and a scooter from children, and even try to take a baby's stroller, warning that every Californian would have to disclose their assets or face a 40% penalty.
"Make no mistake—what happened on November 3 was a referendum on the economy, which is why billionaires poured so much money into defeating Proposition 40 and retaining their grasp on their political and economic power," Pearl said. "It will take continued work with leaders from all political parties to fully tackle and address the problem that is extreme wealth concentration."
Economic justice campaigners are already looking forward to trying to pass a billionaire tax in 2028.
“That’s not a hypothetical," said Regan. "That’s our plan."
San Francisco organizer Nadia Rahman said: "And more broadly, we need to tax billionaires throughout the country. We should all demand the new 2027 Congress do so with the mandate the voters gave them last week."
"Contact your congressional representatives," she added, "and tell them to tax the rich."