

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.

+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM)
Oxfam reaction to European Commission proposals related to corporate tax, released on 22 December 2021:
Chiara Putaturo, Oxfam's EU Tax expert, said:
Oxfam reaction to European Commission proposals related to corporate tax, released on 22 December 2021:
Chiara Putaturo, Oxfam's EU Tax expert, said:
"After almost two years into the global Covid-19 pandemic, that has increased inequality across Europe and poured billions of taxpayers' money into keeping businesses afloat, it's high time that the European Commission proposes to make big companies pay more taxes. Still, the level of ambition is a far cry from fair. Now, EU Member States must ensure that companies pay a fair share of taxes to help fund our hospitals and green public investments."
On the Proposal on implementation of the OECD global agreement on minimum effective taxation:
"Regrettably, the Commission bailed on going beyond the unfair and unambitious OECD agreement on minimum tax and instead replicated all the faults of the deal, including the very low effective tax rate of 15 percent, that will become even lower because of significant exemptions. The good news is that the minimum tax will be extended to domestic companies, so an affiliate of TotalEnergies in France will be subject to the same minimum tax as an affiliate of TotalEnergies in Germany. This is coherent and will assure that more companies have to pay a minimum level of taxes.
It is essential now that as many Member States as possible fight tooth and nail against some corporate lobbyists and tax haven Member States that will no doubt try to weaken the directive even more. Those Member States that are serious about making multinational companies pay a fair share should not hesitate to go beyond the directive and adopt a higher minimum tax with fewer exemptions and more companies covered, and with a more equal division of revenue with developing countries.
On the Initiative to fight the use of shell entities:
"Shell companies were once again at the heart of the biggest tax scandals of 2021, as disclosed by the Openlux and Pandora Papers. Multinationals and the worlds' wealthiest individuals use letterbox companies to hide money or escape taxes. It is about time for the European Commission to act.
However, the shell company initiative risks to not solve the problem. Financial services are excluded and a company is believed to have a real economic activity even if it records very high revenues with very few employees and machines. This will leave several shell companies off the hook.
On the Own resources package:
"In principle, requiring big biz and major polluters to pay for the EU recovery makes sense, but not if it the EU is asking the poorest countries to foot the bill, which is what the Carbon Border tariff risks doing if the lowest income countries are not exempted.
Moreover, the new OECD rules to make multinationals pay taxes where they have sales, merely brings crumbles to the EU. Only a few companies and a very small percentage of their profits will be taxed, and EU countries have to renounce existing and planned digital taxes under the OECD agreement. The Commission and Member States must step up the taxation on big companies by speedily agreeing on a common EU tax base for all corporate profits with a reallocation formula among Member States."
Note to the editors
Last week, Oxfam launched a manifesto with recommendations on tax and tax-related files to the French Presidency, including on the minimum tax, the shell companies initiative and CBAM.
Oxfam considers the effective tax rate of 15% agreed at OECD level and proposed again by the European Commission as far too low. Moreover, the OECD agreement and the EU proposal includes a so-called 'substance carve-out', which allows companies to pay a lower tax rate than 15 per cent in countries where they have many employees or tangible assets such as factories and machineries.
The minimum tax agreed at OECD only applies to companies that are not resident in a country, while domestic entities are excluded. The European Commission proposes to apply to domestic companies too, to not introduce a discrimination in treatments between domestic and foreign affiliates and risk legal controversy. The US is also currently discussing it.
The OECD agreement grants almost all the tax revenue generated from the global minimum tax to "residence" countries, e.g. those countries where the multinational companies have their headquarter, which overwhelmingly tends to be in rich countries. There is however a possibility for low-income countries to gain more revenues from the minimum tax, through the Subject to Tax Rule (STR). To be applied, this rule requires a change in bilateral tax agreements.
The OpenLux scandal in 2021 showed that Luxembourg is hosting 55,000 offshore companies with no economic activity. Several of them are used for tax avoidance, evasion, or money-laundering purposes. More recently, the Pandora papers exposed how the wealthy use shell companies to pay less taxes or keep their financial activities hidden.
The European Commission proposed as own resources revenues from ETS, CBAM and OECD Pillar 1. Oxfam asks to use revenues of CBAM for climate actions and to exempt Least Developed Countries so that the lowest income countries are not disproportionally affected.
In May 2021 the European Commission proposed the "Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT)", that would include rules for a common tax base and the allocation of profits between Member States based on a formula (formulary apportionment). The BEFIT should become one of the EU own resources, according to the European Commission.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
Earlier on Monday, rival Zohran Mamdani sarcastically congratulated Cuomo for receiving a backhanded endorsement from the president.
Independent New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo does not appear to want President Donald Trump's endorsement.
During a Monday interview flagged by MeidasTouch, Cuomo was asked by WQHT morning show host Ebro Darden about Trump giving the former New York governor a backhanded endorsement over his top rival, Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani.
"Your boy was just on '60 Minutes,' Cuomo, saying you're his guy," Darden informed Cuomo.
"No," Cuomo responded.
Darden, however, pressed the issue.
"Trump said you're his candidate!" he said. "If he had to pick a bad Democrat or a... communist, he's picking you!"
There were then several seconds of silence after this before Darden's co-host, Peter Rosenberg, concluded that he had left the interview.
Co-host Laura Stylez lamented that Cuomo never answered Darden's question about the Trump endorsement.
"I really wanted to hear that answer!" she said.
Rosenberg then said that he heard a "click" on Cuomo's end, which indicated that he had apparently ended the call.
"Wow!" exclaimed Stylez. "OK!"
"Oh well!" said Darden.
Ebro: Your boy was just on 60 Minutes, Cuomo, saying that you're his guy!
Cuomo: No.
Ebro: Trump said you're his candidate.
Cuomo: *ends call* pic.twitter.com/GuwgIId5hU
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) November 3, 2025
During an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Trump said that he was "not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other," before adding that he would nonetheless prefer him to Mamdani.
Mamdani, a Democratic state Assembly member who has represented District 36 since 2021, immediately pounced on Trump’s remarks and sarcastically congratulated his rival for winning the endorsement of a Republican president who is deeply unpopular in New York City.
“Congratulations, Andrew Cuomo!” he wrote in a social media post. “I know how hard you worked for this.”
A leaked audio recording from a Cuomo fundraiser in the Hamptons in August included comments from the former governor about help he expected to receive from Trump as he ran as an independent in the mayoral race, following his loss to Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo and Trump have reportedly spoken about the race, which will be decided at the ballot box on Tuesday.
"Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
On the verge of the longest government shutdown in US history and in the wake of two losses in district courts, President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would only partially fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million Americans this month.
In response to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Friday ruled against the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) refusal to use a contingency fund for at least some of November's $8 billion in SNAP benefits, often called food stamps.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, gave the USDA two options: Fully cover the November SNAP benefits with the emergency funding and money pulled from other sources by the end of Monday, or make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency fund by the end of Wednesday.
In a pair of Monday filings, the Trump administration chose the latter, explaining that there is "a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments."
While the development means millions of low-income families will at least get some benefits this month, a hunger crisis still looms. As one of the filings notes, "This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely."
In a Monday statement, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups that sued in Rhode Island, welcomed that McConnell's order "means SNAP beneficiaries—including children and seniors—whose money ran out at the end of last month should be receiving funds for essential nutrition." However, she also called out the Trump administration for "still trying to deprive people of their full benefits," which "will not only prevent people from getting the full sustenance they need but also delay payments going out altogether."
"We are reviewing the administration's submission to the court and considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds," she pledged. "It shouldn't take a court order to force our president to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people. For now, we are pleased to have forced the administration to release money it had been withholding from 42 million people in America who rely on their benefits. Rest assured, we will continue to fight so that people have the full benefits they are entitled to under SNAP."
Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell—who co-led the case in her state with over two dozen other AGs—noted Monday that "never in the history of the SNAP program—including during government shutdowns—has SNAP funding ever been suspended or only partially funded."
"While some funding is better than no funding, the federal government has made it clear that they are only willing to do the bare minimum to help our residents, and only after they were required to do so by our lawsuit and the courts," she said. "The Trump administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program."
Democrats in Congress—who have refused to vote for the GOP majorities' funding legislation to end the shutdown unless they reverse devastating cuts to Medicaid and extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits—also criticized the USDA's plan.
"USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on social media. "Trump's 'decision' to follow the court order and only send partial SNAP benefits to 42 million hungry Americans as Thanksgiving approaches is cruel and callous. Trump should focus less on his ballroom and his bathroom and more on the American people."
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) similarly said: "The letter of the law is as plain as day. Trump should have paid SNAP benefits all along. Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law."
Both Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, also took aim at the president on Monday. Markey said: "Two federal courts confirm what we already knew: Trump must use contingency funds to fund SNAP this month. But millions will still see their benefits delayed because Trump tried to hold SNAP hostage. No more games. Use all available resources to ensure no one goes hungry."
While it's the Senate where Republicans need some Democratic votes to send a government spending bill to Trump's desk, House Democrats also blasted the administration's decision to only partially fund SNAP benefits in November.
"This is a very temporary Band-Aid," stressed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that "42 million hardworking Americans are trying to figure out how they will keep food on the table. Partial is not good enough. End this Republican shutdown now so we can fully fund SNAP."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) declared: "Trump needs to stop weaponizing hunger. They have the authority to fully fund SNAP for 42 million Americans—including 1.4 million Michiganders. Anything less is unacceptable. It shouldn't take a court order to get the president to stop starving families and release the funds."
"These are not random donations," said Public Citizen. "It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
As President Donald Trump has embarked on the $300 million demolition of the East Wing of the White House—a project he insists has been "longed for" for more than a century—he has openly said that he and "some of [his] friends" are paying for the ballroom he is building.
But an analysis on Monday detailed just how "massive, inescapable, and irremediable" the donors' conflicts of interest are, as more than a dozen of the presidents' "friends" have major government contracts and are facing federal enforcement actions.
The White House has denied that corporate donors to Trump's ballroom construction project have any conflicts of interest, but Public Citizen found that 16 out of 24 publicly disclosed contributors—including three identified by CBS News but not by the White House—have government contracts.
The companies, including Amazon, Google, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies, have received $279 billion in government contracts over the last five years and nearly $43 billion in the last year. Lockheed is by far the biggest recipient, having received $191 billion in defense contracts over the last five years. The amount the companies have each donated to the ballroom construction has not been disclosed, but Lockheed spent more than $76 million in political donations from 2021-25.
The money the corporations have spent to build Trump's ballroom, said Public Citizen, "are not random donations. It's a clear-as-day effort to kiss up to the Trump administration."
Lockheed is among at least 14 ballroom contributors that are facing federal enforcement actions, including labor rights cases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement, and antitrust actions.
The National Labor Relations Board has before it cases alleging unfair labor practices by Lockheed as well as Google and Amazon.
The big tech firm Nvidia, another donor, has previously been accused of entering into a "quid pro quo" arrangement with the White House when it said it would give 15% of its revenue from exports to China directly to the Trump administration. The company has spent more than $6 million on political donations since 2021 and more than $4 million on lobbying, and faces a Department of Justice antitrust investigation into whether it abused its market dominance in artificial intelligence computer chips.
While Trump has sought to portray the ballroom fundraising drive as one in which his wealthy "friends" have simply joined the effort to beautify a cherished public building, Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said the companies are not acting "out of a sense of civic pride."
"They have massive interests before the federal government and they undoubtedly hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration," said Weissman. "Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory, and enforcement decisions."
In total, the 24 companies identified as ballroom donors spent more than $960 million in lobbying and political contributions in the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.
Weissman said the companies' contributions to the president's pet project amount to corporate America "paying tribute" to the White House in order to stave off unfavorable labor rights and antitrust rulings, energy and financial regulations, and SEC actions and oversight, like an investigation into the cryptocurrency firm Gemini over alleged sales of unregistered securities.
"This is more than everyday corporate influence seeking. Paying tribute is a mark of authoritarianism and in making these payments, these corporations are aiding Trump’s authoritarian project," said Weissman. "They should withdraw their contributions.”