SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_3_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_1_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_13_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_16_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_2_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
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.
In releasing a revised version of their legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, along with co-sponsors Dean Heller and Ron Johnson, claimed that their bill isn't a "partisan" approach and doesn't include "draconian cuts." In reality, however, the Cassidy-Graham bill would have the same harmful consequences as those prior bills.
In releasing a revised version of their legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, along with co-sponsors Dean Heller and Ron Johnson, claimed that their bill isn't a "partisan" approach and doesn't include "draconian cuts." In reality, however, the Cassidy-Graham bill would have the same harmful consequences as those prior bills. It would cause many millions of people to lose coverage, radically restructure and deeply cut Medicaid, and increase out-of-pocket costs for individual market consumers. It would cause many millions of people to lose coverage, radically restructure and deeply cut Medicaid, eliminate or weaken protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and increase out-of-pocket costs for individual market consumers.
Cassidy-Graham would:
By attempting to push this bill forward now, Senators Cassidy and Graham are reverting to a damaging, partisan approach to repealing the ACA that would reverse the historic coverage gains under health reform and end Medicaid as we know it -- even as other members of Congress, with the help of governors and insurance commissioners of both parties, are making progress in crafting bipartisan legislation to strengthen the individual market.
Block Grant No Replacement for ACA Coverage Provisions
Cassidy-Graham cuts health coverage in two ways: first, by undoing the ACA's major coverage expansions through a block grant, and second, by radically restructuring and cutting the entire Medicaid program. The bill would eliminate the ACA's Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies starting in 2020, offering in their place only a smaller, temporary block grant that states could use for health coverage or any other health care purposes, with no guarantee of coverage or financial assistance for individuals.
According to the bill's sponsors, this block grant would give states "flexibility," allowing them to maintain the coverage available under the ACA if they wanted to do so while enabling other states to experiment with alternative approaches. But in reality, states wouldn't be able to maintain their coverage gains under the ACA. Instead, Cassidy-Graham, like the earlier House and Senate repeal-and-replace bills, would cause many millions of people to lose coverage.
First and foremost, this is because the block grant funding would be insufficient to maintain coverage levels equivalent to the ACA. The block grant would provide $239 billion less between 2020 and 2026 than projected federal spending for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies under current law. In 2026, block grant funding would be at least $41 billion (17 percent) below projected levels under the ACA. These figures do not include the cuts resulting from the bill's Medicaid per capita cap, discussed below, which would cut Medicaid funding outside of the ACA's Medicaid expansion by an estimated $39 billion in 2026.
These estimates understate the actual cuts to federal funding for health coverage in another way as well. Under current law, federal funding for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies automatically adjusts to account for enrollment increases due to recessions or for higher costs due to public health emergencies, new breakthrough treatments, demographic changes, or other cost pressures. In contrast, the Cassidy-Graham block grant amounts would be fixed -- they wouldn't adjust for the higher costs states would face due to these factors. Faced with a recession, for example, states would have to either dramatically increase their own spending on health care or, as is far more likely, deny help to people losing their jobs and their health insurance.
Like the earlier version of the Cassidy-Graham plan, the revised plan would disproportionately harm certain states. The block grant would not only cut overall funding for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies but also, starting in 2021, redistribute the reduced federal funding across states, based on their share of low-income residents rather than their actual spending needs. In general, over time, the plan would punish states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion or been more successful at enrolling low- and moderate-income people in marketplace coverage under the ACA. It would impose less damaging cuts, or even raise funding initially, for states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion or enrolled few low-income residents in marketplace coverage. (These states would still see large cuts in the long run and during recessions or when faced with other anticipated increases in health care costs or need.)
In 2026, the 20 states facing the largest funding cuts in percentage terms would be Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. These states' block grant funding would be anywhere from 35 percent to nearly 60 percent below what they would receive in federal Medicaid expansion and/or marketplace subsidy funding under current law.
The Cassidy-Graham bill would lead to large coverage losses for another reason as well. Under current law, moderate-income consumers in the individual market are guaranteed tax credits to help them pay for meaningful coverage meeting certain standards, and low-income adults in expansion states are guaranteed the ability to enroll in Medicaid, which provides a comprehensive array of benefits and financial protection. Cassidy-Graham would eliminate these guarantees and allow states to spend their federal block grant on virtually any health care purpose, not just for health coverage.
Facing federal funding cuts and exposed to enormous risk, most if not all states would have to use the bill's so-called "flexibility" to eliminate or cut coverage and financial assistance for low-and moderate-income people. In particular, many states would likely do one or more of the following: cap enrollment; offer very limited benefits; charge unaffordable premiums, deductibles, or copayments; redirect federal funding from providing coverage to other purposes, like reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care; and limit assistance to fixed dollar amounts that put coverage out of reach for most low- and moderate-income people. As a result, many millions of people would lose coverage.
Block Grant Funding Would End After 2026
The bill's block grant would not only be inadequate to replace the ACA's major coverage expansions (the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies) but would disappear altogether after 2026. The bill's sponsors have claimed that the rules that govern the budget reconciliation process, which allows the bill to pass the Senate with only 50 votes, necessitated that the proposed block grant be temporary. In reality, however, nothing in those rules prevents the bill from permanently funding its block grant. Furthermore, the expiration of the temporary block grant would create a funding cliff that Congress likely couldn't afford to fill. Even if there were significant political support for extending the inadequate block grant in the future, budget rules would very likely require offsets for the hundreds of billions of dollars in increased federal spending needed for each additional year.
The result is that, beginning in 2027, Cassidy-Graham would be virtually identical to a repeal-without-replace bill -- except for its additional Medicaid cuts through the per capita cap, described below. CBO estimated that the repeal-without-replace approach would ultimately leave 32 million more people uninsured. The Cassidy-Graham bill would presumably result in even deeper coverage losses than that in the second decade.
Like Prior Repeal Bills, Cassidy-Graham Imposes Damaging Cuts to Rest of Medicaid Outside of Expansion
Like prior House and Senate Republican repeal bills, the Graham-Cassidy bill would radically restructure and cut the rest of Medicaid, outside of the ACA's Medicaid expansion. It would end the federal-state financial partnership under which the federal government pays a fixed percentage of a state's Medicaid costs. It would instead impose a per capita cap, under which federal Medicaid funding would be capped at a set amount per beneficiary, irrespective of states' actual costs, and would grow each year more slowly than the projected growth in state Medicaid costs per beneficiary.
The result would be deep cuts to federal Medicaid spending for seniors, people with disabilities, families with children, and other adults (apart from those affected by the bill's elimination of the Medicaid expansion). Earlier CBO estimates suggest that Cassidy-Graham would cut the rest of Medicaid (outside the expansion) by $175 billion between 2020 and 2026, with the cuts reaching $39 billion by 2026 or 8 percent relative to current law.[1]
These cuts would grow in coming decades. That's because starting in 2025, the bill would lower the annual adjustment of per capita cap amounts. For example, the cap on Medicaid spending for children and non-disabled, non-elderly adults would rise each year by the general inflation rate, which is about 2.5 percentage points lower than projected increases in per-beneficiary costs for those groups. As CBO has previously found with the Senate Republican leadership bill (the Better Care Reconciliation Act), this would drive deeper federal Medicaid spending cuts over the long run as the "gap [between Medicaid spending under current law and under the per capita cap] would continue to widen because of the compounding effect of the differences in spending growth rates" between the per capita cap and states' actual Medicaid spending needs.[2]
The per capita cap would force states to make the same kinds of harsh choices in the rest of their Medicaid program that are imposed on them by the bill's other funding cuts. States would have to raise taxes, cut other budget priorities like education, or make increasingly severe cuts to eligibility, benefits, and provider payments. For example, many states would likely cut home- and community-based services, which allow people needing long-term services and supports to remain in their homes rather than move to a nursing home; these and other benefits that are "optional" to states under federal law would be at greatest risk.
Moreover, the gap between federal funding under the per capita cap and states' actual funding needs would grow even larger if Medicaid costs grow more quickly than expected (due to a public health emergency or a new drug) or grow in ways that the per capita cap doesn't account for (due to the aging of the population).
Notably, these per capita cap cuts would come on top of the cuts to Medicaid expansion funding and marketplace subsidies under the block grant discussed above. In 2026, for example, we estimate that the block grant and Medicaid per capita cap combined would result in at least a $80 billion federal funding cut. (See Figure 1.) Thirty-six states, including the District of Columbia, would face net cuts to Medicaid funding (not just for the expansion) and marketplace subsidies in that year. (See Appendix Table 1.) In 2027, when the block grant is eliminated entirely and the per capita cap cuts continue to grow, we estimate the combined federal funding cut would be $299 billion, relative to current law.[3]
Plan Would Eliminate or Weaken Pre-Existing Condition Protections
Similar to the House-passed bill (the American Health Care Act), the Cassidy-Graham bill would provide states expansive waiver authority to eliminate or weaken the prohibition against insurance companies charging higher premiums based on their health status and the requirement that insurers cover the essential health benefits related to any health insurance plan that is in any way subsidized by the bill's block grant funding. States seeking waivers would only have to explain how they intend to maintain access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but they wouldn't have to prove that their waivers would actually do so.[4]
The block grant subsidy requirement, for example, could be satisfied by states simply using a small portion of their block grant funding to provide even tiny subsidies to all individual market plans. As a result, while insurers would still be required to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, insurers could charge unaffordable premiums of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per month, effectively resulting in a coverage denial. Insurers could also offer plans with large benefit gaps. For example, before the ACA introduced the requirement that all plans cover a defined set of basic services, 75 percent of individual market plans excluded maternity coverage, 45 percent excluded substance use treatment, and 38 percent excluded mental health care, according to analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.[5] This would leave many people -- especially those with pre-existing conditions -- without access to the health services they need.
The waiver authority included in the Cassidy-Graham bill is similar to the so-called "MacArthur amendment" waivers included in the House-passed bill.[6] Analyzing those waivers, the CBO concluded that states accounting for one-sixth of the nation's population would choose to let insurers charge higher premiums based on health status. In those states, "less healthy individuals (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would be unable to purchase comprehensive coverage with premiums close to those under current law and might not be able to purchase coverage at all [emphasis added]." And states accounting for half of the nation's population would choose to let insurers exclude essential health benefits. In those states, "services or benefits likely to be excluded ... include maternity care, mental health and substance abuse benefits, rehabilitative and habilitative services, and pediatric dental benefits." People needing these services "would face increases in their out-of-pocket costs. Some people would have increases of thousands of dollars in a year."[7]
Destabilizing Individual Market in Near Term, Risking Collapse in Long Run
Even as other members of Congress, including the chair and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, are working on bipartisan efforts to strengthen the individual market and the marketplaces, the Graham-Cassidy bill would disrupt the individual market in the short term. Like the Senate Republican leadership bill and the House-passed bill, it would immediately eliminate the individual mandate. That would raise the number of uninsured by 15 million relative to current law in 2018 and increase individual market premiums by 20 percent.
The bill's elimination of the ACA marketplace subsidies and start of a block grant in 2020 would cause massive additional disruption. With 50 states and the District of Columbia left to devise their own coverage programs -- lacking guidance, standards, or administrative infrastructure -- and to make substantial changes to their market rules as well, insurers would have no idea how the individual market would operate starting in 2020. It could be years before they had any clarity about the state of the market, including what their risk pools would look like. In the interim, insurers would most almost certainly impose large premium rate increases to account for uncertainty; some would likely exit the market altogether.
Then in 2027, when the block grant disappeared entirely, states would no longer be able to obtain waivers of the protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Insurers in all states would face a market without an individual mandate or anyfunding for subsidies to purchase coverage in the individual market yet be subject to the ACA's prohibition against denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging people higher premiums based on their health status. Many insurers would likely respond by withdrawing from the market, leaving a large share of the population living in states with no insurers, as CBO has warned about previous repeal-without-replace bills.
In both the near and long term, the disruption caused by Cassidy-Graham would thus result in large individual market coverage losses on top of those directly resulting from the bill's marketplace subsidy cuts.
TABLE 1 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cassidy-Graham Block Grant and Medicaid Per Capita Cap Cut Federal Funding for Most States by 2026 | |||
State | Estimated federal funding change, in 2026 (in $millions) | ||
United States | -$80,000 | ||
Alabama | 1,713 | ||
Alaska | - 255 | ||
Arizona | - 1,600 | ||
Arkansas | - 1,102 | ||
California | - 27,823 | ||
Colorado | - 823 | ||
Connecticut | - 2,324 | ||
Delaware | - 724 | ||
District of Columbia | - 431 | ||
Florida | - 2,691 | ||
Georgia | 1,685 | ||
Hawaii | - 659 | ||
Idaho | 177 | ||
Illinois | - 1,420 | ||
Indiana | - 425 | ||
Iowa | - 525 | ||
Kansas | 821 | ||
Kentucky | - 3,062 | ||
Louisiana | - 3,220 | ||
Maine | - 115 | ||
Maryland | - 2,162 | ||
Massachusetts | - 5,089 | ||
Michigan | - 3,041 | ||
Minnesota | - 2,747 | ||
Mississippi | 1,441 | ||
Missouri | 545 | ||
Montana | - 515 | ||
Nebraska | 203 | ||
Nevada | - 639 | ||
New Hampshire | - 410 | ||
New Jersey | - 3,904 | ||
New Mexico | - 1,350 | ||
New York | - 18,905 | ||
North Carolina | - 1,099 | ||
North Dakota | - 211 | ||
Ohio | - 2,512 | ||
Oklahoma | 1,118 | ||
Oregon | - 3,641 | ||
Pennsylvania | - 850 | ||
Rhode Island | - 625 | ||
South Carolina | 804 | ||
South Dakota | 218 | ||
Tennessee | 1,642 | ||
Texas | 8,234 | ||
Utah | 313 | ||
Vermont | - 561 | ||
Virginia | 268 | ||
Washington | - 3,333 | ||
West Virginia | - 554 | ||
Wisconsin | 252 | ||
Wyoming | -90 |
Source: CBPP analysis, see methods notes for details
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation's premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
One critic said Secretary of State Marco Rubio's "crude effort" to sanction Francesca Albanese "only serves to establish that the U.S. is an international outlaw."
Defenders of Palestine and the rule of law on Wednesday condemned Secretary of State Marco Rubio's announcement of sanctions targeting United Nations expert Francesca Albanese, one of the most outspoken critics of Israel's U.S.-backed genocidal war on the Gaza Strip.
In a post on the social media site X, Rubio said he is imposing sanctions on Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, "for her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt International Criminal Court action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives."
"Albanese's campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated," Rubio added. "We will always stand by our partners in their right to self-defense. The United States will continue to take whatever actions we deem necessary to respond to lawfare and protect our sovereignty and that of our allies."
"Mr. Rubio, with this post you have sealed your legacy as an enemy of international law and basic human decency."
Rubio's announcement came a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza including murder and forced starvation—met with President Donald Trump and other U.S. officials in Washington, D.C.
Trump and the fugitive Israeli leader reportedly discussed plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and a deal to secure the release of the 22 remaining living hostages believed to be held by Hamas and the bodies of over two dozen others.
The Trump administration previously sanctioned ICC officials including Prosecutor Karim Khan for issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Albanese has accused Israel of violating the Genocide Convention since early 2024. Last week, she asserted that "Israel is responsible for one of the cruelest genocides in modern history."
"The situation in the occupied Palestinian territory is apocalyptic," she said. "In Gaza, Palestinians continue to endure suffering beyond imagination."
Israel's 642-day assault and siege on Gaza—which is the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case—has left more than 209,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, whose figures have been deemed accurate by Israeli military intelligence and peer-reviewed studies, at least two of which concluded the official death toll is likely an undercount.
U.N. experts, jurists, genocide scholars including numerous numerous Jews in Israel and around the world, national leaders, and human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Jewish Voice for Peace, and CodePink are among those accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
Responding to Rubio's announcement, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said on social media that "Francesca Albanese is working tirelessly to document and report on Israel's unlawful occupation, apartheid, and genocide, on the basis of international law."
"Governments around the world and all actors who believe in the rule-based order and international law must do everything in their power to mitigate and block the effect of the sanctions against Francesca Albanese and more generally to protect the work and independence of special rapporteurs," she added.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of highlighted the movement to nominate Albanese for the Nobel Peace Prize, which stands in stark contrast with Netanyahu's dubious nomination of Trump for the award.
U.S. human rights attorney Craig Mokhiber—who in October 2023 resigned from his U.N. post over what he called the world body's inaction in the face of "a genocide unfolding before our eyes"—accused Rubio of "a lawless, vile act."
"Your arrogance will catch up to you," Mokhiber added. "The impunity that you are enjoying now will be gone within a few years, and I am confident that you will be held accountable for your persecution of human rights defenders and for your violations of the human rights of countless people in the U.S. There are millions who will work to ensure it."
Laura Boldrini, a lawmaker from Albanese's native Italy and former U.N. human rights official, said on social media that Rubio's move is "a disgrace that cannot be ignored."
"Albanese's latest report, which lists the companies involved in the illegal annexation policies of the West Bank carried out by the Israeli government, has clearly hit the mark," she added. "It is no longer just a matter of political interests, but also economic ones. And this, for Netanyahu and Trump, is truly too much. Nothing and no one must disturb business: not even the denunciation of a genocide and the illegal occupation of another people's territories."Arab American Institute founder James J. Zogby contended that Rubio's "crude effort to sanction U.N. human rights champion Francesca Albanese and the International Criminal Court only serves to establish that the U.S. is an international outlaw."
"Israel is violating international law and human rights, and the U.S. is enabling it," he added. "It's a disgrace."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive director of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, noted that the Trump administration this week removed al-Qaeda-linked militants who toppled the regime of longtime Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations, but is sanctioning a U.N. human rights official.
"Let that sink in," Parsi said.
"The reason why this is happening, not so subtly alluded to by Trump, is because Brazil actually held its right-wing coup leader accountable," said one critic.
After days of publicly railing against Brazil for the trial of its former leader, Jair Bolsonaro, U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened the South American country with a 50% tariff "on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States."
Far-right Bolsonaro, sometimes called the "Trump of the Tropics," lost Brazil's 2022 presidential election to leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the recipient of the Wednesday letter that the U.S. president posted on his Truth Social network.
Bolsonaro is now facing a trial for alleged crimes, including an attempted coup d'état, following his reelection loss. The Brazilian's effort to cling to power was called "straight from Donald Trump's playbook," with critics worldwide pointing to the U.S. leader inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection after his own electoral loss the previous November.
"This is a disgrace, just old-fashioned imperialism. A 50% tariff because Brazil's legal system has defended democracy."
In Truth Social posts on Monday and Tuesday, Trump blasted the trial as a "WITCH HUNT" and an "attack on a Political Opponent" while praising Bolsonaro as a "strong Leader, who truly loved his Country" and a "very tough negotiator on TRADE."
Echoing those posts, Trump wrote to Lula: "The way Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!"
"Due in part to Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50%," Trump continued.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the Brazilian Supreme Court justice overseeing Bolsonaro's case, was also involved in a legal battle that temporarily shut down the social media platform X in Brazil. The network, formerly known as Twitter, is owned by estranged Trump ally Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth. The weekslong suspension of X last year stemmed from the company's refusal to comply with an order to deactivate dozens of accounts accused of spreading disinformation.
Both Trump and Elon have used their power and platforms to go after Brazil. When Musk did it last year I spoke with some Brazilian media experts and journalists who explained that Brazil actually takes online disinformation and threats to their democracy seriously www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
[image or embed]
— Kat Tenbarge (@kattenbarge.bsky.social) July 9, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Trump claimed in his letter to Lula that "these Tariffs are necessary to correct the many years of Brazil's Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers, causing these unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States. However, The Guardian noted, "the U.S. runs a trade surplus with Brazil, thanks in part to a free-trade agreement expanded in 2020, during Trump's first term."
The newspaper pointed to data on Brazil from the website of United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer:
U.S. total goods trade with Brazil were an estimated $92 billion in 2024. U.S. goods exports to Brazil in 2024 were $49.7 billion, up 11.3% ($5.0 billion) from 2023. U.S. goods imports from Brazil in 2024 totaled $42.3 billion, up 8.3% ($3.2 billion) from 2023. The U.S. goods trade surplus with Brazil was $7.4 billion in 2024, a 31.9% increase ($1.8 billion) over 2023.
Various journalists and other critics also highlighted the surplus. Michael Reid, a writer and visiting professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said on social media: "This is a disgrace, just old-fashioned imperialism. A 50% tariff because Brazil's legal system has defended democracy. And by the way, the U.S. has a trade surplus with Brazil."
Politico reported that "the overtly political tone of the letter is a break with more than a dozen other letters Trump has sent to foreign governments this week, threatening to impose new tariff rates on their exports to the U.S. beginning August 1."
While Trump's letter to Brazil has overtly political motivations, he also said during a Tuesday Cabinet meeting that he would target the entire BRICS economic group of emerging market nations, which began with Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now also includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates.
"If they're a member of BRICS, they are going to have to pay a 10% tariff, just for that one thing—and they won't be a member long," Trump said, according to CNN. "BRICS was set up to hurt us, BRICS was set up to degenerate our dollar and take our dollar, take it off as the standard."
After six months, the policy of tolling drivers has reduced traffic and raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the city's transit system. But the Trump administration is still trying to shut it down.
New York City's congestion pricing program has now been in place for six months as of Saturday, and according to state officials, it has already proven remarkably successful. It has survived despite efforts by the Trump administration to shut it down.
The program, which tolls drivers who drive through designated "congestion zones" below 60th Street in Manhattan has dramatically reduced traffic, which in turn has sped up commute times, reduced pollution, and raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
"Six months in, it's clear: congestion pricing has been a huge success, making life in New York better," Governor Kathy Hochul (D) said Saturday. "In New York, we dare to do big things, and this program represents just that—traffic is down throughout the region, business is booming, transit ridership is up, and we are making historic upgrades to our transit system."
Since the program started, the number of vehicles driving through the congestion zone has decreased by 11%, with a total of 10 million fewer cars having entered compared to last year. In just the first three months of the program, traffic in the congestion zone sped up by 15%.
This has led to reduced wait times for commuters, not just in the congestion zone but in surrounding areas like the Bronx and Bergen County, New Jersey.
The number of crashes is down 14% in the congestion area, while traffic fatalities have reached "historic lows" citywide.
The data has also borne out the predictions from environmentalists and public transit activists who said the program would reduce pollution, both by capping the number of cars on the road and funding long-term investment in the public transit system.
The MTA is on track to raise $500 million from congestion pricing in 2025, as was projected when the policy went into effect. The agency also reports that subway and bus usage have gone up since congestion pricing began, while service speed has improved to "near record levels."
Beyond improving convenience, data shows the program is already improving quality of life in other ways. Early estimates from a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research show that within the first month of congestion pricing, CO₂ emissions from vehicles decreased by 2.5% with other forms of air pollution and soot levels also declining. These numbers will likely continue to rise as public transit usage expands.
Ben Furnas, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a New York-based pro-transit group that supported congestion pricing, told The Guardian that the program exceeded his already-high expectations.
"It's been even more obviously beneficial than even the most fervent proponents had hoped, and there have been really tangible improvements that are really gratifying," he said. "Reducing pollution is often seen to involve a lot of sacrifices, but this has been different. People can see the improvements to their lives. There was this cynical assumption that this was a bullshit charge and life will stay the same, but that assumption has gone away now."
During the tumultuous year leading up to congestion pricing's implementation, business groups raised fears that charging drivers would bankrupt small business owners. Hochul even blocked the policy from going into effect for months last year, citing those concerns.
Trump's Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, has called the charge a "slap in the face to working class Americans and small business owners."
But the city reports more pedestrian traffic and faster commutes, increasing economic activity.
"Gridlock is bad for the economy," noted a statement from the state of New York. "Commuters are saving as much as 21 minutes each way. Time savings help businesses make deliveries and save costs."
The city also reports increased Broadway ticket sales, hotel occupancy, and commercial office leasing since the policy went into effect, as well as record employment figures.
Despite nearly immediate indicators of the congestion scheme's success, the Trump administration has been attempting to kill it since he returned to office in January.
"We've...fended off five months of unlawful attempts from the federal government to unwind this successful program and will keep fighting–and winning–in the courts," Hochul said.
In February, the White House infamously posted an artificially generated image of Trump wearing a crown. It quoted President Trump saying: "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
That same month, U.S. Transportation Secretary Duffy withdrew federal approval for the congestion pricing pilot program, threatening to pull funding for other state transportation projects if it was not halted.
But a U.S. district judge issued a temporary restraining order in May that has, for the time being, halted the Trump administration's efforts.
Attempts to kill the program may prove more difficult in the future, as it has overcome initial skepticism to grow broadly popular with a majority of New Yorkers. Hochul herself was once among those skeptics, but she has grown to become one of its greatest champions.
"You are seeing in the governor… the zeal of the convert," said Daniel Pearlstein, a spokesperson for the pro-transit Riders Alliance.
"People who had their doubts, they saw it up close. They saw it working," he said. "They are saving New Yorkers and people from New Jersey valuable time every single day. Who would want to rip that away?"