

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


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

A new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) finds that the U.S. continues to suffer from the extreme and growing wealth and power of inherited-wealth family dynasties - and the growth of their extreme wealth accelerated during the pandemic.
The report, "Silver Spoon Oligarchs: How America's 50 Largest Inherited-Wealth Dynasties Accelerate Inequality," tracked the 50 wealthiest families from 1983 to 2020 using data from Forbes. IPS researchers found that by 2020, the 50 families had amassed $1.2 trillion in assets. For the 27 families on the Forbes 400 list in 1983, their combined wealth had grown by 1,007 percent and for the five wealthiest dynastic families, their wealth increased by a median 2,484 percent during 37 years. The Walton family led the pack with an increase of 4,320 percent, while the Mars candy family saw its wealth increase 3,517 percent.
"When we focus on the surging fortunes of first-generation billionaires - and their shocking tax avoidance - we forget to look at the troubling growth of dynastic families and the changes in tax policies that will enable the children of today's billionaires to become tomorrow's oligarchs," said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and author of the new book, The Wealth Hoarders: How Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions.
"In a healthy democratic society with a functioning tax system, wealth disperses over decades as people have children, pay their taxes, and give to charity. But with a weak tax system on wealth - as confirmed by the recent leak showing low billionaire taxes - we are now seeing wealth accelerate over generations, leading to consolidated wealth and power," he said.
The report finds that inherited wealth dynasties are growing due to an inadequate tax system, excessive hiding of wealth in dynasty trusts, and low charitable giving by multi-generational wealth dynasties. It also finds that members of the inherited wealth generation are using their wealth and power to rig the rules to get more wealth and power. Some are even using their charitable donations and political giving to press for lower taxes.
Other key findings from the report include:
Dynastic wealth grows much faster than the wealth of ordinary families. The 27 families who were on the Forbes 400 list in 1983 had a median increase in their net worth, adjusted for inflation, of 904 percent over those 37 years. In contrast, between 1989 and 2019--the most recent year available--the wealth of the typical family in the U.S. increased by just 93 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The wealth of the very top grew even faster. The five wealthiest dynastic families in the US have seen their wealth increase by a median 2,484 percent from 1983 to 2020. For example:
In 1983, Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and his children were worth just $2.15 billion (or $5.6 billion in 2020 dollars). By the end of 2020, Walton's descendants had a combined net worth of over $247 billion, an inflation-adjusted increase of 4,320 percent.
The Mars candy dynasty has seen its wealth increase 3,517 percent over the past 37 years, from $2.6 billion in 1983 (in 2020 dollars) to $94 billion by 2020. The Mars family also stands out for the miniscule amount of money they have stored in family foundations--$48 million as of 2018--in contrast to the large sums they have spent on public policy advocacy to change tax laws.
Cosmetics magnate Estee Lauder and her descendants have seen their wealth grow from just $1.6 billion in 1983 (in 2020 dollars) to $40 billion in 2020. This is a growth rate of 2,465 percent. A hefty portion of that growth has come in just the past five years: the Lauder family's assets have grown 119 percent since 2015, for an average growth rate of 16.9 percent each year.
Dynastic wealth is persistent and consolidating. Of the 20 wealthiest families on the list in 2020, 13 were already in the top 20 in 1983. Only 4 of the top 20 wealth dynasties are new to the list since 1983.
Wealth for dynastic families has grown significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the top 10 families on the Forbes dynasty list have had a median growth in their net worth of 25 percent.
Dynastically wealthy families wield a great deal of political power, and use it to further their interests. The report profiles dynastic family members who spend millions lobbying for favorable tax, labor, and trade policies, give to candidates, campaigns and PACs, serve on policy advisory boards; and even serve in government themselves. For example, members of the Busch, Mars, Koch, and Walton families have together spent more than $120 million over the past ten years on lobbying directly for tax, labor, and trade policies favorable to their businesses and investments.
Dynastic families exploit their philanthropic power too, through charities and foundations. The report examined more than 248 foundations set up by the top 50 families, housing more than $51 billion in assets. While many move much-needed revenue to broader public interest charities, others fund groups working to reduce taxes on the wealthy and roll back regulations that constrain corporate profits. Some funnel millions to donor-advised funds, which can fund dark-money political advocacy. And in a few cases, family members have used them to compensate themselves.
The report profiles all of the 50 families, including the Waltons, the Kochs, the Mars family, and many others, some well-known and some relatively unknown. The report explains the dangers from the extreme consolidation of dynastic wealth and power with sections such as:
The dangers of dynastic wealth accumulation
Immense and tenacious fortunes
The political power of wealth dynasties
Philanthropy as an extension of dynastic power
The dynastiesThat might have been
A section of the report entitled, The Six Habits of Highly-Entrenched Dynasties, details how family dynasties hoard and protect their fortunes from taxes:
Defeat any attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy
Don't give away too much to charity
Form a family office to sequester wealth
Create dynasty trusts and other loopholes to avoid estate and gift taxation (See the IPS Briefing Paper: "Dynasty Trusts: How the Wealthy Shield Trillions from Taxation Onshore.")
Use your wealth to promote self-serving public policy
Weaponize your charitable giving to advance your dynastic interests
Solutions to the consolidated wealth and power examined in the report include:
Existing Proposals:
Greater oversight and enforcement by the IRS
Emergency pandemic wealth tax
Annual wealth tax
Millionaire surtax
Progressive estate tax
Inheritance tax on heirs
State level estate and wealth taxes
New Proposals in the Report:
Establish a federal rule against perpetuities
Outlaw certain types of trusts
Step up administrative actions by the executive branch
The report concludes:
"These trends are alarming for the health of a republic that aspires to widely held prosperity and opportunity. If we stay on our current trajectory, families of inherited wealth will exert ever more control over public policy and the public pocketbook. But we can choose to move in a new direction: to enact economic policies that strengthen society as a whole, ensuring equal opportunity and dignity for all, not just the very few."
This report follows regular analyses from IPS on billionaire wealth gains during the pandemic, CEO pay, philanthropic giving and the racial wealth divide. In addition, recent reports have covered billionaire landlords and billionaire owners of companies with essential workers during the pandemic.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
Nearly seven in 10 feel the Trump administration has not provided evidence to justify its killing of at least 114 people in the Caribbean and other international waters.
The vast majority of US voters want the Trump administration to be more transparent about its campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and other international waters, according to a new poll out Monday.
While it has faded from the headlines over the past week due to President Donald Trump's illegal overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and atdtempt to commandeer the nation's oil, his bombings of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and elsewhere have continued into the new year.
As of January 2, the US military had disclosed 35 separate attacks to the public, with a death toll of at least 114 people in total since September. But the administration has provided scant evidence to justify the attacks.
According to an ACLU/YouGov poll released on Monday, which was conducted in late December, 83% of voters believed the administration must release its legal justifications and full, unedited videos of the lethal strikes. This includes 97% of Democrats, but also 82% of independents and 70% of Republicans.
Several media outlets reported in November that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) authored a still-classified legal opinion justifying the strikes and exempting those involved in directing them from future prosecution. The ACLU and other rights groups filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last month for the document.
The poll shows that a majority of voters—87% of Democrats, 53% of independents, and 15% of Republicans—disapproved of the strikes, while nearly seven in 10 felt that the administration has not yet shown evidence to the public justifying the bombings.
Members of both parties in Congress have called for the administration to release video of the strikes, with particular scrutiny on the September 2 "double-tap" strike in which the military bombed two shipwrecked survivors of an earlier attack.
Last month, Hegseth declined a request from Congress to release unedited video footage of the incident to the public. He had previously changed his recounting of the event multiple times, initially boasting of the attack before shunting the blame onto an underling—Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley—when the second strike was made public and met with outcry.
Trump, meanwhile, has misled the public about what drugs were supposedly on the boats. He has publicly stated that the ships were carrying fentanyl, a drug that has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the US, dubbing it a "weapon of mass destruction."
Lawmakers have said they were briefed that the ships were actually carrying cocaine, which is much less deadly, though evidence of this has also not been shown to the public.
One bombed-out ship that washed up on the shores of Colombia in late December with two mangled corpses aboard was found to have only been carrying marijuana, which is legal in more than half of all US states. Other investigations have found that some of those killed in the strikes were fishermen or others not connected to the drug trade.
While the September 2 strikes—which were reportedly given the go-ahead by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—have become the subject of a congressional inquiry, the ACLU says the entire bombing campaign is illegal.
"The US military may not, under any circumstances, execute civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs," the group said last month. "Rather, the US government must first pursue non-lethal measures like arrest and demonstrate that lethal force is an absolute last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury."
Two-thirds of respondents to the poll said that rather than carry out extrajudicial executions, they would prefer that the Coast Guard conduct its usual operations, seizing those it suspects of transporting drugs and putting them on trial.
Meanwhile, 58% said they'd support Congress holding a public hearing with officials in charge of the strikes, such as Hegseth, while just 19% said they'd oppose it.
Just over half described killing people suspected of carrying drugs as "murder," with that belief growing even stronger with respect to the double-tap strike.
"Our polling makes clear that an overwhelming number of Americans on both sides of the aisle want Congress to step up and hold the Trump administration publicly accountable for its illegal strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s democracy and technology division.
“This means open hearings with the officials responsible for these murders, as well as releasing both the legal justification and unedited videos of the strikes," he continued. "Given the life-or-death stakes of the president’s use of force, it’s imperative that this transparency and accountability comes immediately.”
If the proposed tax is enacted, Huang would face a roughly $8 billion tax bill—a tiny fraction of his $165 billion net worth.
Jensen Huang, CEO of the tech behemoth Nvidia and the eighth-richest man in the world, said Tuesday that he is "perfectly fine" with a grassroots push in California to impose a one-time wealth tax on the state's billionaire residents.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Huang said that "we chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes, I guess, they would like to apply, so be it"—a nonchalant response that diverges from the hysteria expressed by other members of his class in response to the proposed ballot initiative.
"It never crossed my mind once," Huang said of the tax proposal.
If the proposed 5% levy on billionaire wealth makes it onto the November ballot and California voters approve it, Huang would face an estimated $8 billion tax bill—a tiny slice of his $165 billion net worth. Those subject to the tax would have the option of paying the full amount owed all at once or over a period of five years.
"'Who cares' is absolutely the appropriate reaction," said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank. "It means nothing to him. David Sacks types look like the biggest babies in the world."
Bruenig was referring to the White House cryptocurrency czar who left California for Texas at the end of 2025 in an apparent effort to avoid the possible billionaire tax, which would apply to anyone living in California as of January 1, 2026.
“As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital,” Sacks declared in a social media post last week.
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created."
The proposed one-time tax on California's roughly 200 billionaires would raise an estimated $100 billion in revenue, funds that would be set aside for the state's healthcare system, food assistance, and education.
Organizers are pursuing the tax in direct response to unprecedented Medicaid cuts enacted by US President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress over the summer.
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and the lead sponsor of the ballot initiative, welcomed Huang's response to the proposed tax in a statement late Tuesday.
"We agree with Jensen Huang that California has a tremendous talent pool of workers uniquely qualified to continue moving many industries forward, including within the tech sector and beyond," said Jimenez. "This initiative will ensure the $100 billion healthcare funding crisis created by [the Trump-GOP legislation] in July is fixed, so that all of those workers can access emergency rooms and vital healthcare in California."
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created last July—and that California will unite to solve this November," Jimenez added.
Longtime US allies, including France and Germany, are reportedly meeting to discuss options should President Donald Trump move to annex Greenland.
A Republican congressman on Wednesday made the case for seizing Greenland while describing the US as "the dominant predator" in the Western hemisphere.
During an interview with Fox Business, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) claimed that taking control of Greenland from Denmark was a vital strategic US interest, saying it should be seized regardless of the opinions of its residents.
"It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are, quite frankly, a protectorate of the United States," said Ogles, who is the lead sponsor of legislation backing Trump's Greenland takeover bid. "You know, they've been in... a relationship with Denmark, that needs to end... When you look at the Monroe Doctrine, you look at the Western hemisphere, we are the dominant predator, quite frankly, force in the Western hemisphere."
Rep. Ogles: "It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are quite frankly a protectorate of the US. They've been in relationship with Denmark -- that needs to end. We have spilled more blood protecting Greenland than the Danes ... we are the dominant predator… pic.twitter.com/uAtHMMV0hL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2026
Ogles' belligerent remarks came as Reuters reported that longtime US allies, including France and Germany, are making plans for how to respond should Trump go through with trying to annex Greenland.
It is not clear what shape this response would take, though a senior European official told Reuters that "the Danes have yet to communicate to their European allies what kind of concrete support they wish to receive," even while insisting that Denmark take the lead in pushing back against Trump's threats.
The report noted that Johannes Koskinen, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Finland's parliament, has called on NATO members to "address whether something needs to be done and whether the United States should be brought into line in the sense that it cannot disregard jointly agreed plans in order to pursue its own power ambitions."
While much of the Republican Party has largely been in lockstep in supporting Trump's Greenland threats, not every GOP lawmaker is on board.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said during a Tuesday interview with CNN that he hoped to rally other Republicans against any plans to seize the country.
"This is appalling," Bacon said. "Greenland is a NATO ally. We have a base on Greenland, we could put four or five bases on Greenland. They wouldn't mind that, they would make agreements with us on mining."
Bacon also emphasized the infeasibility of Trump's plans.
"We're not going to acquire Greenland," he said. "Most people in Greenland want to remain independent... with Denmark providing some protection... So this is one of the silliest things I've heard come out of the White House in the last year. It's unacceptable and I hope other Republicans line up behind me and make it clear to the White House that it's wrong."
Bacon on the administration's rhetoric about Greenland: "This is one of the silliest things I've heard come out of the White House in the last year. It's unacceptable and I hope other Republicans line up behind me and make it clear to the White House that it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/HH9LlDX5aJ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 6, 2026
Trump and his allies have been making more aggressive statements in recent days about taking Greenland, which Trump has called essential to US national security.
Top Trump aide Stephen Miller on Monday night refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland during a Monday interview with CNN, and further claimed that “the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology.”