April, 17 2018, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jack Pfeiffer, 202-641-8574
jpfeiffer@americansfortaxfairness.org
Morgan Williams Grogan, 202-836-9890
morgan.williams@berlinrosen.com
Americans' Health Care And Public Services At Risk From Trump Tax & Budget Cuts, New Report Warns
Trump/GOP Tax breaks for wealthy, Rx and insurance companies, and Trump budget show grim future of drastic health care and other service cuts for working families.
WASHINGTON
This week in communities across the country advocates are holding events to educate the public about the harmful effects of the new tax law. Advocates at the events are releasing a new report from Americans for Tax Fairness and Health Care for America Now that shows how much the tax cuts in each state favor the wealthy and prescription drug companies and health insurers, and how the $1.5 trillion hole the Trump-GOP tax law blows in the national debt jeopardizes funding for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, education and more in each state. The national report is here and state reports are here.
"America's working families are, as usual, getting the short end of the stick from the new Trump-GOP tax law. Most of the tax cuts benefit the wealthy and big corporations, which shows the power of special-interest lobbyists in Washington," said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "The biggest threat for working families is how the tax law puts Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and education at risk because it blows a nearly $2 trillion hole in the national debt. This report documents those effects based on President Trump's proposed budget for next year. Tax reform should have helped working families get ahead, not tilted the playing field further in favor of the wealthy and well-connected."
"Trump and his Republican allies are playing politics with the health and the lives of millions of Americans," said Health Care for America Now Co-Directors Ethan Rome and Margarida Jorge. "The new tax law hands tens of billions of dollars in tax savings to prescription drug companies and health insurers while repealing a key part of the Affordable Care Act that results in higher premiums for American families and 13 million losing coverage. Trump and the Republican Congress need to know that American voters are not going to take this lying down."
National Report Executive Summary:
On Tax Day 2018, health care and other vital public services are much less secure for America's working families due to $1.5 trillion in tax cuts enacted late last year by President Trump and the Republican Congress.
- The tax cuts take revenue out of the federal budget that could be used for public services and investments and divert most of it to the richest households and largest corporations. When the new tax law is fully phased in, 83% of the tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 1%.
- Moreover, these tax cuts will explode the national debt and thereby endanger future funding for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other public services working families rely on.
The Trump-GOP tax cuts put the interests of the wealthy and corporations over those of working families and local communities:
- The richest 1% of taxpayers will get 27% of the nation's total tax cut. The bottom 60% of taxpayers will get just 13% of the tax cuts.
- The richest 1% will get a tax cut of $55,190, on average. The bottom 60% will get a tax cut of $440--about a dollar a day.
Prescription drug companies and health insurers will reap tens of billions of dollars in tax savings under the new tax law, but few are sharing the wealth with their workers, and none are planning to cut their drug or insurance prices:
- Among the top 10 U.S. drug companies just Merck and Pfizer have said that they will share any of their new tax cuts with employees in the form of one-time bonuses, wage increases or fringe benefits.
- Of the 10 biggest health insurance and managed-care companies just three--Anthem, Cigna and Humana--have said that they will share any of their new tax cuts with employees.
To pay for their $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and corporations, President Trump and the GOP Congress have targeted vital public programs, particularly health care, for service reductions:
- The new tax law reaps $314 billion in savings by repealing a key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), resulting in higher premiums and millions losing coverage. By eliminating the requirement that those who can afford it buy health insurance, the GOP will be responsible for 13 million Americans losing coverage by 2027 and insurance premiums spiking by 10%, or $2,000, on average in 2019 for the remaining insured who buy policies on the individual market.
- In his budget for next year, Trump proposed more than $1.7 trillion in spending cuts. This would slash services that working families rely on:
- Health care: The Trump budget proposes repealing the ACA, which would cause 32 million Americans to lose their health coverage by 2027.
- Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps): Trump's cuts to food stamps could cost more than 5 million households their benefits in 2019 and 5.5 million households could lose benefits by 2028.
- Disability programs: Trump cuts a total of $72 billion over 10 years from Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
- Infrastructure: Trump proposes cuts of $240 billion over 10 years to infrastructure programs. This includes a $99 billion cut to highway funding and $39 billion cut to transit funding between 2021 and 2027. These cuts could mean the loss of more than 1.7 million "job years" (one job for one year) over this time.
- Education: Trump's budget eliminates federally-subsidized student loans, which could affect many of the 5.6 million college students who received $20.9 billion in aid last year.
- Affordable housing: More than 198,600 families could next year lose the housing vouchers that help them afford rent in private housing. $3.1 billion could be cut in 2019 from a fund to repair and upgrade public housing facilities. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program would be eliminated, costing $958 million that helps provide affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities. The Community Development Block Grant program would be zeroed out, cutting $3 billion that helps localities pay for a variety of community and economic development services, including affordable housing.
The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan scorekeeper, now reports that the tax cuts will add $1.9 trillion to the deficit--one-quarter more than the $1.5 trillion estimated when the tax law was approved in December. This is close to the $1.7 trillion cut to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security disability programs, SNAP and more proposed in Trump's budget.
Top Six States with Most Skewed Distribution of Trump-GOP Tax Cuts, Effects of Individual Mandate Repeal on Insured Population and Premiums, and Effects of Overall ACA Repeal
Rank | State | Top 1% Share of Trump Tax Cuts | Bottom 60% Share of Trump Tax Cuts | Value of Top 1% Tax Cut | Value of Bottom 60% tax Cut | # Losing Health Care from Individual Mandate Repeal (2025) | Avg Premium Increase from Individual Mandate Repeal (2019) | # Losing Health Care from ACA Repeal |
1 | WY | 42% | 9% | $108,880 | $420 | 22,000 | $3,460 | 51,000 |
2 | NV | 41% | 11% | $104,700 | $500 | 112,000 | $1,730 | 243,000 |
3 | FL | 40% | 8% | $98,480 | $320 | 873,000 | $1,860 | 3,217,000 |
4 | SD | 39% | 11% | $88,650 | $440 | 34,000 | $2,080 | 70,000 |
5 | GA | 34% | 12% | $64,620 | $370 | 392,000 | $1,930 | 1,192,000 |
5 | TX | 34% | 12% | $80,350 | $460 | 1,036,000 | $1,730 | 2,759,000 |
Click Here for full data set on all 50 states with impacts of TCJA and Trump and GOP budget cuts.
Americans for Tax Fairness is a diverse coalition of 425 national and state endorsing organizations that collectively represent tens of millions of members. The organization was formed on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. ATF is playing a central role in Washington and in the states on federal tax-reform issues.
Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is the national grassroots coalition of labor unions, community groups, policy advocates and online organizations that from 2008-2013 ran a five-and-a-half-year campaign to pass, protect, and promote the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
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
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


