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.
ATLANTA - In response to the Presidential Debate, Sunrise Movement Communications Director Stevie O’Hanlon, released the following statement:
“Tonight put on full display how broken our political system is. Our generation deserves better.
The debate also made it undeniable that a Trump Presidency would be a climate catastrophe. When Trump was asked if he would address the climate crisis, he ignored the question completely – because he can’t answer it. He has promised oil and gas CEOs that he will expedite drilling permits, hasten fracked gas pipeline approvals, and release 'vast stores' of oil and gas on public lands. In return, they’re bankrolling his campaign.
Biden touted achievements that young people fought hard and long to win: the Civilian Climate Corps and the Inflation Reduction Act. Like in 2020, we will fight like hell to defeat Donald Trump so we have the political conditions to end the fossil fuel era and win a Green New Deal.
But President Biden and the Democratic establishment’s choices have made an election against a convicted felon dangerously tight. Young people have offered Democrats the vision, energy, and policy on which to beat Donald Trump. They have turned away from it. If there is to be any chance of beating Trump this November, they must listen to young voters.”
Sunrise Movement is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.
Patriotic Millionaires, an organization that lobbies for higher taxes on the wealthy, said the report was a "reminder of how unfair our tax code is."
Although Elon Musk's space exploration company SpaceX has benefited over the years from several lucrative government contracts, it has largely avoided paying any taxes to the federal government.
The New York Times reports that SpaceX has "most likely paid little to no federal income taxes since its founding in 2002 and has privately told investors that it may never have to pay any."
The reason that the company has gotten away with paying practically no taxes, writes the Times, is that it takes advantage of a tax benefit commonly referred to as a net operating loss carryforward "that allows it to use the more than $5 billion in losses it racked up by late 2021 to offset paying future taxable income." This tax benefit was initially limited in its scope, but congressional Republicans and US President Donald Trump in 2017 scrapped its expiration date for all companies, thus letting SpaceX and other firms take advantage of it indefinitely.
Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, told the Times that this tax benefit was intended to help struggling firms weather tough times to stay in business, but that it was "clearly not intended for a company doing so well" as SpaceX.
In its review of SpaceX's internal documents, the Times found that SpaceX had paid a small amount of taxes over the years, although none of them were to the federal government.
"In one document, the company said it expected to pay $483,000 in income tax to foreign governments and $78,000 in state income tax in 2021," writes the paper. "Separately, it reported paying $6,000 for income taxes in 2020 and 2021, but did not disclose if the payments were for federal, state or local governments."
What makes SpaceX's tax avoidance particularly noteworthy is its own dependence on the federal government for business. In 2020, the Times found, federal contracts accounted for nearly 84% of the firm's total revenues.
Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy Americans who advocate for higher taxes on the rich, wrote on X that SpaceX's almost total lack of tax payments to the federal government was yet another piece of evidence about the tax system being rigged for the big corporations.
"SpaceX has secured billions in government contracts over the years," they wrote. "In return, it has likely paid... $0 in federal income taxes—and may never have to. Just in case you needed a pre-weekend reminder of how unfair our tax code is!"
"Just one authoritarian thing after another."
US President Donald Trump's White House has reportedly created a scorecard that rates American corporations and trade groups based on how fervently they have promoted Trump's agenda, a move that critics described as part of the president's authoritarian approach to governing and dealing with private businesses.
Axios, which first reported on the White House scorecard Friday, explained that the document "rates 553 companies and trade associations on how hard they worked to support and promote President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'" which includes massive corporate tax breaks and unprecedented cuts to safety net programs.
"Factors in the rating include social media posts, press releases, video testimonials, ads, attendance at White House events, and other engagement related to 'OB3,' as the megabill is known internally," the outlet reported. "The organizations' support is ranked as strong, moderate, or low. Axios has learned that 'examples of good partners' on the White House list include Uber, DoorDash, United, Delta, AT&T, Cisco, Airlines for America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association."
The spreadsheet is reportedly being circulated to senior White House staffers and is expected to evolve to gauge companies' support for other aspects of the president's agenda. Corporations that decline to praise Trump's policies—or dare to criticize them—could face government retribution.
"Just one authoritarian thing after another," Rachel Barnhart, a Democratic member of the Monroe County, New York Legislature, wrote in response to the Axios story.
News of the internal "loyalty rating" spreadsheet comes days after Trump reached an unprecedented deal with the chip giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that critics likened to a strongman-style "shakedown." The companies agreed to pay the US government 15% of their revenues from exports to China in exchange for obtaining export licenses.
Trump, who has reported substantial holdings in Nvidia, has hosted company CEO Jensen Huang—one of the richest men in the world—at the White House at least twice this year. Huang has effusively praised the president, calling his policies "visionary."
That's just one example of how major CEOs have sought to flatter Trump, who has proven willing to publicly attack executives—and even demand their resignation.
Fortune noted Wednesday that "Apple CEO Tim Cook gave Trump a customized glass plaque mounted on a 24-karat gold stand last week, when he announced his company’s $100 billion investment in domestic production."
Cook also donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.
Companies that have worked to get in the president's good graces appear to be reaping significant rewards.
A Public Citizen analysis published earlier this week found that companies spending big in support of Trump are among the chief beneficiaries of his administration's deregulatory blitz and retreat from corporate crime enforcement.
"Tech corporations facing ongoing federal investigations and enforcement lawsuits that are at risk of being dropped or weakened following the industry's influence efforts include Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Snap, Uber, Zoom, and Musk-helmed corporations The Boring Company, Neuralink, SpaceX, Tesla, X, and xAI," the group said.
Business journalist Bill Saporito wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times earlier this week that "in ripping up numerous business regulations, Donald Trump seems intent on replacing them with himself."
"The recipient corporations don't necessarily want Mr. Trump's meddling, particularly given his fun house view of economics," Saporito added, "but they can't get away from it."
"The only emergency here is a lawless president experiencing a growing public relations emergency because of his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
As part of the ongoing battle against US President Donald Trump's "hostile takeover" of Washington, DC, key congressional Democrats on Friday introduced a resolution to terminate his executive order, "Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia."
The resolution explains that Trump "has failed to identify special conditions of an emergency nature that compel the use of the
Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes," and "even if properly invoked for an actual emergency, Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act does not empower the president to federalize" the MPD.
"Violent crime in the District of Columbia has declined for the past two years and currently stands at a 30-year low," the measure notes. Additionally, it points out, the GOP-controlled federal government this year has prevented DC from "spending $1 billion of its own locally raised revenues—money that was budgeted for essential public safety purposes, including law enforcement, fire and emergency response services, and schools."
The bill's lead sponsors tied Trump's federalization of the MPD to his efforts to distract from intense calls—including from his base—to release files related to the federal case against deceased financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"The only emergency here is a lawless president experiencing a growing public relations emergency because of his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his stubborn refusal to release the Epstein file despite his promise to do so," said US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) in a statement.
"Trump has made clear that his efforts in DC, where 700,000 taxpaying American citizens lack the protections of statehood, are part of a broader plan to militarize and federalize the streets of cities around America whose citizens voted against him," he added. Trump this week deployed the National Guard in the nation's capital and threatened to do the same in other US cities—including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland—where crime rates are also falling.
No emergency exists in DC that the president did not create himself, and he is not using MPD for federal purposes, as required by law. I introduced legislation with RM Raskin, RM Garcia, & Senator Van Hollen to end the unlawful and unprecedented federalization of MPD.
[image or embed]
— Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) (@eleanornorton.bsky.social) August 15, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Like Raskin—who led the historic second effort to impeach the president after his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021—House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) framed the DC takeover as Trump "making every effort to distract America from Epstein."
In addition to Raskin and Garcia, the bill is sponsored by DC's sole representative in Congress, Democratic Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who can participate in most House proceedings but not vote on final passage of legislation.
"President Trump's incursions against DC are among the most egregious attacks on DC home rule in decades," she said. "DC residents are Americans, worthy of the same autonomy granted to residents of the states. Our local police force, paid for by DC residents, should not be subject to federalization, an action that wouldn't be possible for any other police department in the country."
"No emergency exists in DC that the president did not create himself, and he is not using the DC Police for federal purposes, as required by law," Norton continued. "I appreciate Ranking Member Raskin's enduring support for DC and for working with me to end this unprecedented, dangerous, and disgraceful violation of DC's right to govern its own local affairs."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who will introduce the joint resolution in the upper chamber, noted that "Trump was AWOL when the District of Columbia actually needed support from the National Guard to protect it from an insurrectionist mob on January 6th."
"His current takeover is an abuse of power and nothing more than a raw power grab," Van Hollen added. "The District of Columbia has made important progress on public safety in recent years, and can do more if Trump and House Republicans get the hell out of their way and stop blocking D.C. from accessing $1 billion of its own funds to strengthen policing and provide other public services."
Earlier Friday, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit to block US Attorney General Pam Bondi from taking over the city's police department.
"I applaud DC for taking legal action to end the president's unlawful attempt to seize control of MPD," Norton said on social media, also highlighting the resolution in Congress. "DC is united in our resistance."