September, 28 2017, 02:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Chris Fleming,Email:,chris@redhorsestrategies.com
Worst Features Of The Trump-Ryan Tax Plan
WASHINGTON
This analysis is based on the tax plan framework released by Republican leaders Sept. 27, 2017. The plan is very similar to earlier ones by President Trump and House Speaker Ryan, which were analyzed by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and form the basis of this analysis.[1]
- The Trump-Ryan tax plan is not tax "reform," but massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations that will jeopardize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and public education. Based on earlier Trump and Ryan plans cost estimates, the plan could cut taxes by a total of $6.7 to $8.3 trillion, of which $3 to $5 trillion may not be paid for by closing tax loopholes and limiting deductions.[2] The resulting jump in the deficit would increase the likelihood of deep cuts to Social Security, healthcare, education and other services. Such cuts are in Trump's 2018 budget, which slashes $4.3 trillion from Social Security, Medicaid, education and other services. Ryan's House budget slashes $5.8 trillion from Medicare, Medicaid education, and other services.[3]
- The wealthy and corporations will get most of the tax cuts at the expense of working families who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education. Under Trump's previous tax plan, the richest 1% would get half of the tax cuts, or $175,000 each year, on average.[4] His plan required one-quarter of middle-class families to pay more in taxes.[5] Under Ryan's earlier plan, the richest 1% would get more than 99% of the tax cuts once fully enacted, with a $240,000 tax cut each year, on average.[6]
CORPORATE TAX CUTS
- Corporate tax rates are slashed by more than 40%--from 35% to 20%--losing $1.8 trillion over 10 years.[7] Corporations need to pay their fair share not get a tax cut. Corporate profits are at near record highs, while corporate tax revenues are at record lows.[8] Profitable corporations are paying a U.S. tax rate of just 14%, according to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office.[9] Many pay nothing for years.[10] Only $1 out of $9 of federal revenue now comes from corporate taxes; in the mid-20th century it was $1 out of $3.[11] Moreover, 80% of corporate tax cuts benefit wealthier Americans.[12]
- Trump-Ryan slashes the top tax rate on business income from hedge funds, law firms, real estate firms like Trump's, and other "pass-through" businesses from 39.6% to 25%, losing $390 to $660 billion.[13] Many of these big-money outfits organize as partnerships or other business entities that allow them to pay business taxes at individual rates. Claims that this is a small business tax cut is a hoax: Just 4% of pass-through business owners will get a tax cut from the new top 25% rate, as everyone else already pays that rate or less. The top one-tenth of 1% will get a tax cut of $270,000, on average.[14] As the sole or principal owner of 500 pass-through entities,[15] Trump will benefit handsomely,[16] from what's been aptly dubbed the "Trump Loophole."[17]
- Trump-Ryan temporarily (for at least five years) allows corporations to immediately write off big purchases, which could lose $900 billion to $2.2 trillion.[18] Businesses would be allowed to immediately write off--or fully "expense"--the total cost of big-ticket purchases such as vehicles, equipment, and buildings. Currently, they may deduct (or depreciate) only a portion of the expense each year over a multi-year period to reflect the progressive decline in the property's value. The wide cost range comes from uncertainty as to the tax cut's economic effect. Though this is a 10-year estimate, the bulk of the revenue loss occurs in the first five years.[19] The Tax Policy Center has questioned claims about the supposed economic boost from full expensing, suggesting expensing could retard growth.[20]
- Trump-Ryan potentially allows American corporations to dodge all U.S. taxes on foreign profits through a territorial tax system. Under such a system, U.S. corporations would no longer pay taxes on profits booked offshore (although Trump's plan suggests there may be a minimum tax on profits in tax havens). A territorial system will encourage multinationals to shift even more profits and jobs offshore than they do now.[21] Analysis of a similar plan found a territorial tax system would lose $205 billion over 10 years.[22]
- Multinational corporations with profits stashed offshore could get a $600 billion tax cut. Big American corporations hold $2.6 trillion in profits offshore on which they owe about $750 billion in U.S. taxes.[23] The new plan promises a big tax break on these profits, but it does not indicate the tax rate. Trump previously proposed cutting the rate from 35% to just 10% on cash and only 4% on non-cash assets, raising about $150 billion.[24] So, tax-dodging multinationals could get an undeserved tax break of about $600 billion. They should instead pay what they owe, just like working families and small businesses do.
INDIVIDUAL TAX CHANGES
- The top tax rate on individuals would be lowered from 39.6% to 35%, and six other tax brackets would shrink to just two, losing $2 trillion.[25] The new brackets are 12%--an increase on lower income Americans from the current 10% rate--25%, and 35%. The reduction in the top rate will help give a $270,000 average tax cut to the Top 1%, which was estimated under Trump's earlier tax plan.[26] The top 0.1% would get a $1.4 million tax cut, on average.
- The alternative minimum tax (AMT) would be repealed allowing wealthy taxpayers like Trump to use excessive deductions and other loopholes to sharply reduce or eliminate their tax bill, losing $445 billion.[27] Trump could benefit massively: In 2005, the one year for which his tax returns have been made public, he made $153 million and paid $38 million in federal income taxes for a tax rate of 25%.[28] Without the AMT, he would have paid just $5 million in federal income taxes, a tax rate of less than 4%.[29] That rate is less than the lowest-income Americans often pay.[30]
- Trump-Ryan eliminates estate and gift taxes, losing $239 billion and boosting the inheritances of millionaires and billionaires.[31] The federal estate tax is paid only by estates worth at least $5.5 million, just 1 in 500 estates,[32] or only 5,500 estates in all of 2017.[33] Assuming Trump is worth the $10 billion he claims, his heirs could gain billions if his plan is adopted.[34]
- Trump-Ryan repeals the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), raising taxes on the middle class and undermining local public services. Taxpayers can deduct state and local property taxes, and either income or sales taxes, from their federal taxable income. Over a third of taxpayers making $50-75,000 use the SALT deduction, and over half of those making $75-100,000.[35] An average family in this last group would see their federal taxes jump by $1,800 if SALT is repealed.[36] Repealing SALT would increase federal revenue by $1.3 trillion over 10 years.[37] In addition to boosting taxes on the middle class, repeal of the SALT deduction will make local taxation more expensive, putting pressure on localities to cut budgets for services like roads and schools.
- Trump-Ryan pulls a bait-and-switch with tax provisions working families rely on, increasing the standard deduction while eliminating the personal exemption, ultimately leaving many families worse off. Taxpayers who don't itemize their deductions (which under this plan may be limited to charitable contributions and mortgage interest) this year can deduct from their reportable income $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a married couple.[38] The plan would roughly double those amounts to $12,000 and $24,000, losing $708 billion.[39] At the same time, the plan repeals the personal exemption, which reduces reportable income by $4,050 this year for each member of a household. Even with the increased standard deduction, without the personal exemption many large families, and especially those headed by a single parent, would pay more.[40] A Tax Policy Center analysis found that Trump's earlier tax plan would increase taxes for about 8.7 million families--20% of households and more than half of all single-parents.[41] That analysis assumed a much higher standard deduction, which means even more families will experience a tax increase under the Trump-Ryan plan.
ENDNOTES
[1] Tax Policy Center (TPC), "The Implications of What We Know and Don't Know About President Trump's Tax Plan" (July 12, 2017). https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/142616/implications_of_what_we_know_and_dont_know_about_president_trumps_plan_1.pdf. TPC, "Dynamic Analysis of theHouse GOP Tax Plan: An Update" (June 30, 2017). https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/142556/2001397-dynamic-scoring-of-tax-plans-and-analysis-of-the-house-gop-plan.pdf
[2] Americans for Tax Fairness, "Updated Analysis: Trump's Unpaid-For Tax Cuts May Total $5 Trillion in New Tax Plan" (Sept. 27, 2017). https://americansfortaxfairness.org/new-analysis-trumps-unpaid-tax-cuts-may-total-5-trillion-new-tax-plan/
[3] Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (CBPP), "Trump Budget Gets Three-Fifths of Its Cuts from Programs for Low- and Moderate-Income People" (May 30, 2017). https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/trump-budget-gets-three-fifths-of-its-cuts-from-programs-for-low-and#_ftn1. CBPP, "House GOP Budget Cuts Programs Aiding Low- and Moderate-Income People by $2.9 Trillion Over Decade" (Sept. 5, 2017). https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-gop-budget-cuts-programs-aiding-low-and-moderate-income-people-by-29
[4] TPC, "The Implications of...Trump's Tax Plan," Table 4 and p. 9.
[5] Ibid. Table 4 showing that 23.8% of tax units in the middle quintile would experience increased taxes.
[6] TPC "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan" (Sept. 16, 2016), Table 5. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000923-An-Analysis-of-the-House-GOP-Tax-Plan.pdf
[7] TPC, "Dynamic Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Table 5. Amount includes repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
[8] Estimates are measured as a share of the economy/GDP. Americans for Tax Fairness andEconomic Policy Institute, "Corporate Tax Chartbook: How Corporations Rig the Rules to Dodge the Taxes They Owe" (Sept. 2016), Figure 2. https://www.epi.org/publication/corporate-tax-chartbook-how-corporations-rig-the-rules-to-dodge-the-taxes-they-owe/
[9] Government Accountability Office, "Corporate Income Tax" (March 2016). Https://Www.Gao.Gov/Products/Gao-16-363
[10] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), "The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth" (March 2017), p. 4. https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/35percentfullreport.pdf
[11] Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Historical Tables, "Table 2.2: Percentage Composition of Receipts by Source." https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
[12] TPC, "WouldWorkers Benefit from A Corporate Tax Cut? Not Much" (Sept. 8, 2017). https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/would-workers-benefit-corporate-tax-cut-not-much
[13] TPC, "Options to Reduce the Taxation of Pass-through Income" (May 15, 2017), p. 6. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/141541/options-to-reduce-the-taxation-of-pass-through-income.pdf
[14] TPC, "Options to Reduce the Taxation of Pass-through Income," p. 8.
[15] Letter toDonald Trump from tax attorneys Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Mar. 7, 2016). https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Tax_Doc.pdf
[16] The Washington Post, "Donald Trump's New Tax Plan Could Have a Big Winner: Donald Trump's Companies" (Aug. 10, 2016). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/donald-trumps-new-tax-plan-could-have-a-big-winner-donald-trumps-companies/
[17] CNN, "Hillary Clinton Slams 'Trump Loophole'" (Aug. 11, 2016). https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-loophole/
[18] The Tax Foundation, "Full Expensing Costs Less than You'd Think" (June 13, 2017). https://taxfoundation.org/full-expensing-costs-less-than-youd-think/ These cost estimates are based on current tax rates. If corporate tax rates are reduced, the cost of this tax break would decline.
[19] Ibid.
[20] TPC, "A Business Cash Flow Tax Could Reduce Investment, Contrary to What Some Economists Think" (Jan. 24, 2017). https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/business-cash-flow-tax-could-reduce-investment-contrary-what-some-economists-think
[21] ITEP, "Turning Loopholes into Black Holes: Trump's Territorial Tax Proposal Would Increase Corporate Tax Avoidance" (Sept. 6, 2016). https://itep.org/turning-loopholes-into-black-holes-trumps-territorial-tax-proposal-would-increase-corporate-tax-avoidance/
[22] TPC, "An Analysis of Marco Rubio's Tax Plan" (Feb. 11, 2016), p. 10. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000606-an-analysis-of-marco-rubios-tax-plan.pdf
[23] ITEP, "Fortune 500 Companies Hold a Record $2.6 Trillion Offshore" (March 2017), p. 1. https://www.itep.org/pdf/pre0327.pdf
[24] TPC, ""The Implications of...Trump's Tax Plan," Table 2. See "Deemed repatriation rate on accumulated offshore earnings."
[25] Ibid. See "Individual income tax rates of 10, 25, and 35%."
[26] Ibid., Table 3.
[27] TPC, "The Implications of...Trump's Tax Plan," Table 2.
[28] The New York Times (NYT), "Trump Wrote Off $100 Million in Losses in 2005, Leaked Form Shows" (March 14, 2017). https://nyti.ms/2pmUkEH
[29] NYT, "A.M.T., Which Hit Trump in 2005, Is No One's Favorite" (March 15, 2017). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/business/economy/trump-alternative-minimum-tax.html
[30] TPC, "Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households." https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households
[31] TPC, "The Implications of...Trump's Tax Plan," Table 2. See "Repeal the estate, gift and GST taxes."
[32] CBPP, "Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax" (Sept. 8, 2016). https://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax
[33] TPC, "Briefing Book: Who pays the estate tax?" https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-pays-estate-tax
[34] The Detroit News, "Clinton: Trump Plan to Ax Estate Tax Saves His Family $4B" (Aug. 11, 2016). https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/10/clinton-warren-economy/88546136/
[35] Government Finance Officers Association, "The Impact of Eliminating the State and Local Tax Deduction" (Using 2015 IRS data), p. 6. https://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/GFOA_SALT_09202017.pdf
[36] Ibid., p. 8.
[37] TPC, "Revisiting The State and Local Tax Deduction" (Mar. 31, 2016), p. 2. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000693-Revisiting-the-State-and-Local-Tax-Deduction.pdf
[38] IRS.gov, "In 2017, Some Tax Benefits Increase Slightly Due to Inflation Adjustments, Others Are Unchanged." https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/in-2017-some-tax-benefits-increase-slightly-due-to-inflation-adjustments-others-are-unchanged
[39] TPC, "The Implications of...Trump's Tax Plan," Table 2. See "Double standard deduction."
[40] Center for American Progress, "How Middle-Class and Working Families Could Lose Under the Trump Tax Plan" (June 13, 2017). https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/06/13/434054/middle-class-working-families-lose-trump-tax-plan/
[41] TPC, "Families Facing Tax Increases Under Trump's Tax Plan" (Oct. 28, 2016). https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/135696/2000983-Families-Facing-Tax-Increases-Under-Trumps-Plan.pdf
Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) is a diverse campaign of more than 420 national, state and local endorsing organizations united in support of a fair tax system that works for all Americans. It has come together based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. This requires big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, not to live by their own set of rules.
(202) 506-3264LATEST NEWS
'Thinking He Can Fool Everyone,' Newsom Backs One Billionaires Tax But Not Another
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires. But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Jun 26, 2026
Critics say that Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to trick voters with his new plan for a national billionaire income tax, while simultaneously opposing a tax on billionaire wealth in his own state.
Along with a coterie of wealthy donors, Newsom has long stressed that he is adamantly opposed to the statewide plan to institute a one-time 5% tax on the total wealth of those in the state with more than $1 billion to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance programs, which has been spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
But a day after the measure was certified to appear on voters' ballots, Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028 and face an electorate that is angrier than ever about the outsized wealth and power of the billionaire class—unveiled a new national proposal that, at least on the surface, seems to hit many of the same populist notes as the one in California.
It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.
10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.
The system is fundamentally broken.
The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code… pic.twitter.com/tLRbUId6yi
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 26, 2026
"Last night, it became certain that a wealth tax would be placed on the November ballot in California. I’m voting no," he explained in a Substack post, in which he rehashed many of his previous objections—including the factually dubious idea that a wealth tax would supposedly lead to mass capital flight from the state. He also said the plan to spend most of the revenue on healthcare neglects other needs like housing, childcare, and public safety.
As an alternative, he proposed what he referred to as "a national billionaires’ tax. A true minimum tax on billionaires and those with a net worth of over $100 million."
When counting unrealized wealth gains as income, America’s richest billionaires actually pay lower effective tax rates than the average American. A 2025 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) estimated that the richest 400 Americans paid about 24% of total income in taxes from 2018-20, compared with 30% for the public as a whole.
"That system is the result of decades of loopholes written by lobbyists and upheld by politicians who knew exactly who they worked for," Newsom said. "The wealthy have their own private tax code full of loopholes and exemptions that most people have never heard of, and they’re counting on politicians in Washington to maintain it and keep quiet."
Referencing an idea from the Obama era, Newsom described his plan as "a modern Buffett Rule—that ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay."
While he did not elaborate on what rate he'd plan to charge the wealthiest Americans, the original 2012 Buffett Rule would have required that millionaires pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30% of their adjusted gross income (AGI), which includes things like capital gains and other sources of income that are normally taxed at lower rates.
One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments.
It doesn't.
According to a study we have just completed, California's billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax—representing barely 0.2% of the state's… pic.twitter.com/87W7y67sXh
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) June 26, 2026
While Newsom had borrowed the "billionaire tax" branding of California's popular proposal, critics pointed out that he was proposing something vastly weaker.
"Read his Substack post carefully," implored Lever editor-in-chief David Sirota in a social media post. "He’s talking about income taxes and closing a few loopholes, but not a national version of the WEALTH tax on the ballot in California."
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires," Sirota said. "But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Gabriel Zucman, a French economist who has championed the wealth tax measure in California, has said this critical distinction between wealth and income is the reason why a wealth tax in California is needed to begin with.
"California's billionaires now hold $2.3 trillion in wealth—equivalent to roughly half of California's [gross domestic product] and about 10% of US GDP," he said. "One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments. It doesn't."
Citing a NBER working paper from last month, Zucman pointed out that "California's [top four] billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax" while billionaires as a whole represent "barely 0.2% of the state's total tax revenue," meaning that they "contribute a negligible amount to the state that made them rich."
He noted that Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—who have publicly opposed the billionaire's tax and, in Brin's case, spent tens of millions of dollars trying to stop it—reported no taxable income in 2019, 2020, and 2023 because all of their wealth was held in company stock. Since they didn't sell any stock during those years, they had no capital gains and therefore owed no income tax.
In the meantime, Zucman noted, "their fortunes have increased by more than $400 billion" since 2019.
🚨NEW: @RoKhanna suggests @GavinNewsom is trying to block a billionaire tax in order to protect big donors.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class? The only reason...is because you care about 250 people's contributions." pic.twitter.com/mg9kHPGSa2
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) June 23, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—another potential 2028 presidential candidate who introduced his own federal billionaire wealth tax legislation in March with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has vocally questioned Newsom's opposition to the ballot measure in California.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class in California?" he asked earlier this week on a podcast hosted by Sirota. "The only reason, in my view, to not be taxing them is because you care about these 250 people's contributions to the political system."
Sirota speculated that Newsom's motivation behind co-opting and watering down the "billionaire tax" concept was much the same.
He said, "This is Newsom thinking he can fool everyone and going to bat for billionaire donors who could fund his presidential campaign."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Setback for Alaska and Our Oceans': GOP Governor Vetoes Ban on Single-Use Polystyrene Food Packaging in Alaska
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Jun 26, 2026
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Criminalizing Dissent': Alarm Grows Over Extreme Prison Terms for Texas ICE Protesters
“Now anyone engaged in basic protests with the wrong political beliefs can be labeled a domestic terrorist, when they have no intention of violence," said one attorney.
Jun 26, 2026
Alarm and outrage mounted this week following a federal judge's lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell," with some observers calling the extreme punishments—including 30 years for moving a box of constitutionally protected pamphlets—a test case for criminalizing dissent.
Eight members of the "Prairieview Nine"—part of a larger group of activists who staged a July 4, 2025 protest outside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Alvarado, Texas—were sentenced Tuesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment.
Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, was sentenced to 100 years for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses, including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting. Song, a former US Marine, contends that he shot Gross in self-defense after the officer drew his gun first.
The “explosives” in question were fireworks brought to the July 4 protest to show solidarity with people detained by ICE.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive.
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Those documents were leftist pamphlets protected by the First Amendment.
Rueda's husband, Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada, was hit with a 30-year prison sentence for conspiracy to conceal documents for moving a box full of the pamphlets after speaking with his wife. He did not attend the protest.
Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and a favorite of right-wing judge shoppers, told the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology” with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday’s proceedings.
The Prairieland sentences were more severe than the longest prison term for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by President Donald Trump—as well as for convicted child sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
"What happened on Tuesday, it’s shocking to all of us, devastating to the families, 50- to 100-year sentences," Sufia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America and lawyer to one of the Prairieland defendants, told Democracy Now! on Thursday. "Those are essentially life sentences for all of the young people in this case, largely of whom were engaged in nonviolent protest at an ICE detention facility."
A group of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were sentenced to 30 to 100 years in jail on Tuesday, after federal prosecutors accused them of being an "antifa terror cell."
The activists attended a protest and noise demonstration outside the Prairieland ICE jail in Alvarado, Texas.… pic.twitter.com/QxFMPaGsvj
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) June 25, 2026
Khalid noted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) invoked a rarely used "material support for terrorism" statute that "does not require any connection to a domestic terrorist organization or any kind."
"Any American can be targeted that way now. It does not require ties to antifa or to any domestic terrorist organization," she said. "That’s a dangerous precedent, and what allowed them to stack these charges so high on Tuesday."
The DOJ hailed “the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following... Trump’s executive order designating the group as a domestic terrorist organization in September 2025" in the wake of the assassination of white supremacist influencer Charlie Kirk—which had nothing to do with antifa, a decentralized and leaderless international ideology opposing fascism that's more of a mindset than a movement.
Later that month, Trump also signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), a directive titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” that focuses exclusively on left-wing activities and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Khalid pointed to the pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, who "were involved in rioting, carrying massive arsenals of weapons, lots of discussions ahead of time—that didn’t exist in this case—about targeting law enforcement, wanting to kill members of Congress, [and] actually storming the Capitol."
"So, we have a massive, unwarranted sentencing disparity here," she said. "What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Mark Osler, a law professor and sentencing expert at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, told The Guardian on Friday that "the 30-year sentence for Estrada is probably the one that for most people will come closest to shocking the conscience, simply because this is an activity that took place after the harm occurred."
"What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, underscored during a Friday interview in an episode of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Counterspin podcast titled "Criminalizing Dissent" that Estrada "wasn't even at the protest."
"He's somebody who allegedly transported a box of pamphlets because his wife was at the protest," Stern said. "And he believed, according to prosecutors, that the box of pamphlets might implicate his wife... so he was concealing evidence."
"Evidence of what?" he continued. "This wasn't a how-to manual... They were zines. They said nothing about this protest, about the Prairieland detention facility, about shooting this police officer... So when they say that he concealed evidence by moving these zines, evidence of what? It's evidence of an ideology. It's evidence of somebody's reading habits."
"And now they're on the same plane as terrorists, as [Islamic State], according to this administration," Stern added. "It's all pretty absurd. But at the end of the day, we have a Constitution that prohibits people from being locked up for what they think, write, or read, as long as they are not inciting imminent violence. So hopefully the appellate courts will reverse these convictions. But the law is only as good as the people who enforce it."
Jeremy Busby, an incarcerated journalist, wrote on the eve of Estrada's trial that the "homespun zines at issue contain no plans for any shooting, and under normal circumstances, they would clearly be deemed constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment."
"But the government’s concealment theory only makes sense if it views merely having the literature as criminal," he argued. “Criminalizing possession of literature is a miscarriage of justice, whether in prison or at a protester’s husband’s parents’ house. If the Trump administration is allowed to send Estrada to prison for the crime of possessing literature, members of society at large can be subjected to the same pernicious rules as the incarcerated.”
Amber Lowrey, the sister of Prairieland defendant Savanna Batten—who was sentenced to 50 years behind bars for material support for terrorism and conspiracy to use and using "explosives" (fireworks)—told The Guardian before Batten's trial that the Trump administration just wants "to make an example of people and silence anyone who... opposes the government."
"They want to silence dissent, criminalize dissent," she added.
Trump administration prosecutors have also invoked NSPM-7 in the case of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers, who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant crackdown in Minneapolis, where US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti were separately killed earlier this year by ICE and Border Patrol officers.
"We live under a fascist state where ICE agents can murder us with impunity, yet we can go to prison for 50 years for protesting," socialist commentator and journalist Ryan Knight said Thursday on X. "The unjust sentences of the Prairieland protesters violate the First Amendment and infringe on our rights to fight back against a tyrannical government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular