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.
Advocates hold signs during a news conference on Medicare Advantage plans in front of the U.S. Capitol on July 25, 2023 in Washington, D.C.
Since passage of the 1965 Medicare law, special interests inside and outside of government have continually bent the intent of Medicare in order to maximize corporate profits at the expense of taxpayers, seniors, and the disabled.
The authors of "The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America..." describe the corporate campaign to turn public goods and services into private profit-centers, paralleling the U.S. half-century $50 trillion wealth transfer upward. Promoting increasing commodification of healthcare, the U.S. is the only developed nation to place profiteering middlemen between patients and providers. Corporate/Wall St. exploitation of U.S. healthcare as a cash cow since 1980 has contributed to higher health costs and worse outcomes than other advanced nations.
A 1971 Oval Office conversation between President Nixon and John Ehrlichman augured misplaced healthcare priorities. Extolling the Kaiser CEO's profit-seeking, Ehrlichman enthused: "All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make."
Nixon's 1973 HMO Act ushered in "Managed Care" health models, including Health Maintenance Organizations, Accountable Care Organizations and Medicare Advantage, many morphing into "Managed Profit," because neoliberalism yields wealthcare not healthcare.
Since passage of the 1965 Medicare law, special interests inside and outside of government have continually bent the intent of Medicare in order to maximize corporate profits at the expense of taxpayers, seniors, and the disabled. With plutocratic intent Newt Gingrich in 1996 blithely forecast that privatization would cause Medicare to “wither on the vine.”
The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act was G.W. Bush's giveaway to the PhRMA and insurance industries. Even as it prohibited negotiation of bulk medicine rates, the MMA subsidized Medicare Advantage plans with extra billions of dollars annually siphoned from the Medicare Trust Fund, overcharging taxpayers up to $140 billion annually by 2023.
An obscure provision of MMA, the Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWP), furthers Medicare privatization by permitting employers to move retirees, without their consent, into for-profit Medicare Advantage plans. Retiree organizations in Vermont, New York, and Delaware have waged David vs. Goliath-style battles to preserve their Traditional Medicare coverage against the subterfuge of Medicare Advantage "modernization" of benefits, which actually represent benefits "reduction."
A 2023 report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) relates that privatized Medicare Advantage plans drain the Medicare Trust Fund, while increasing insurers' profits and reducing quality of patient care. Failing to protect Medicare's Trust Fund, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has failed to halt overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans. The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) cites CMS outreach and enrollment materials since 2017 that encourage beneficiaries to choose private Medicare Advantage plans over Traditional Medicare.
Excess Medicare Advantage payments fund supplemental benefits and heavy marketing to lure enrollees, while brokers are paid commissions twice as high to sell Medicare Advantage plans than to sell Medicare Medigap plans. Moneymaking schemes of both Medicare Advantage and the Affordable Care Act have employed deceptive marketing, sometimes switching people's insurance without their consent. Some seniors intending to enroll in Traditional Medicare have been enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan. Too many seniors discover too late that MA's frequently-changing, narrow doctor networks expose them to substantial out-of-network costs, and that they are denied access to necessary care.
Medicare Advantage payments are inflated by "upcoding," which exaggerate patient health conditions; capitated payments incentivizing healthcare denial; and prior authorization requirements that delay and deny healthcare. Medicare Advantage "cherry-picking" selects the healthiest for coverage, and "lemon-dropping" rejects sicker patients.
The Affordable Care Act created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to conduct Medicare "innovative payment" experiments, modeled on "Managed Care" ACOs. Since first testing ACOs in 2005, CMS has authorized hundreds of private Managed Medicare ACO insurance models that amplify administrative costs. In 2023 the Congressional Budget Office reported that CMS experiments with "value-based" ACO payments failed to control costs, improve quality or increase equity, costing Medicare $5.4 billion more than it saved during its first decade.
An official CMS webpage titled "Fraud and Abuse Waivers” lists Innovation Center models that have been granted waivers to bypass fraud and abuse laws, to permit testing "innovative payment and delivery models" of healthcare—the better to milk the Medicare Trust Fund. CMS has invited the same investor-controlled insurance and Wall St. actors that drive Medicare Advantage overpayments to act as fiscal intermediaries between providers and patients within successive Trump DCE and Biden ACO REACH Alternative Payment Models.
Every administration since 2000 has welcomed some CMS administrators through Washington's Revolving Door. Prior to, or following government service, some have headed investor-backed health startups. Tom Scully, G.W. Bush's CMS head, oversaw privatized prescription drug benefits and Medicare Advantage before joining a private equity firm to capitalize on public dollars. Liz Fowler has rotated through the Revolving Door, between executive positions with insurance and pharmaceutical industries, alternately helping to draft both the Medicare Modernization and Affordable Care Acts, and subsequently returning to the Biden administration to oversee CMMI that she helped write into the ACA.
Even as CMS promotes experimentation with costlier multiple private payer models, they disregard single-risk-pool Medicare that alone has the economy of scale to provide sustainable universal health coverage, while permitting global budgeting and bulk medicine rate negotiations. Twenty-two studies report annual $600 billion Medicare-for-All administrative savings alone, enough to extend comprehensive health coverage to all ages.
Rather than improve and expand the promise of direct-payment Single-Payer Fee-For-Service—a model utilized by many advanced nations—CMS has promoted privatization of most public healthcare programs. Describing the goal of placing "100% of Traditional Medicare beneficiaries and the majority of Medicaid enrollees in accountable care relationships by 2030," CMS transfers Medicare recipients without their consent into private ACO REACH plans, "auto-aligning" Medicare enrollees with ACO-affiliated providers.
"Don't Bust Up Medicare and Turn It Over to the States," writes Kay Tillow of the latest misguided attempt to drain the Medicare Trust Fund, purportedly to achieve health care state by state.
If Health and Human Services, CMS and legislators fulfilled their responsibility to protect Medicare for the People, the plan would have been streamlined long ago. There would be no need for complicating costly supplemental insurance plans such as Parts A, B, C, D, and Medigap.
The non-profit law organization, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, defender of Traditional Medicare, affirms that "Few programs in the history of the United States have brought as much benefit to society as Medicare... Reforms to Medicare should honor and maintain its core values to ensure its continued success for future generations."
We must eliminate the greed of the market ethos, prioritize health as a human value, and support the aspiration of the Poor People's Campaign—i.e., an economy and healthcare for the people, eliminating continuous wealth transfer upward.
A traditional Medicare enrollee for over a decade, CMS recently notified me that my health provider has been moved to a MSSP ACO, where 11 million beneficiaries were reportedly transferred by 2023. To retain Traditional Medicare, recipients are forced to find independent providers not captured by ACO payment plans, and to do so before CMS drains the Medicare Trust Fund and totally destroys Medicare.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
The authors of "The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America..." describe the corporate campaign to turn public goods and services into private profit-centers, paralleling the U.S. half-century $50 trillion wealth transfer upward. Promoting increasing commodification of healthcare, the U.S. is the only developed nation to place profiteering middlemen between patients and providers. Corporate/Wall St. exploitation of U.S. healthcare as a cash cow since 1980 has contributed to higher health costs and worse outcomes than other advanced nations.
A 1971 Oval Office conversation between President Nixon and John Ehrlichman augured misplaced healthcare priorities. Extolling the Kaiser CEO's profit-seeking, Ehrlichman enthused: "All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make."
Nixon's 1973 HMO Act ushered in "Managed Care" health models, including Health Maintenance Organizations, Accountable Care Organizations and Medicare Advantage, many morphing into "Managed Profit," because neoliberalism yields wealthcare not healthcare.
Since passage of the 1965 Medicare law, special interests inside and outside of government have continually bent the intent of Medicare in order to maximize corporate profits at the expense of taxpayers, seniors, and the disabled. With plutocratic intent Newt Gingrich in 1996 blithely forecast that privatization would cause Medicare to “wither on the vine.”
The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act was G.W. Bush's giveaway to the PhRMA and insurance industries. Even as it prohibited negotiation of bulk medicine rates, the MMA subsidized Medicare Advantage plans with extra billions of dollars annually siphoned from the Medicare Trust Fund, overcharging taxpayers up to $140 billion annually by 2023.
An obscure provision of MMA, the Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWP), furthers Medicare privatization by permitting employers to move retirees, without their consent, into for-profit Medicare Advantage plans. Retiree organizations in Vermont, New York, and Delaware have waged David vs. Goliath-style battles to preserve their Traditional Medicare coverage against the subterfuge of Medicare Advantage "modernization" of benefits, which actually represent benefits "reduction."
A 2023 report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) relates that privatized Medicare Advantage plans drain the Medicare Trust Fund, while increasing insurers' profits and reducing quality of patient care. Failing to protect Medicare's Trust Fund, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has failed to halt overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans. The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) cites CMS outreach and enrollment materials since 2017 that encourage beneficiaries to choose private Medicare Advantage plans over Traditional Medicare.
Excess Medicare Advantage payments fund supplemental benefits and heavy marketing to lure enrollees, while brokers are paid commissions twice as high to sell Medicare Advantage plans than to sell Medicare Medigap plans. Moneymaking schemes of both Medicare Advantage and the Affordable Care Act have employed deceptive marketing, sometimes switching people's insurance without their consent. Some seniors intending to enroll in Traditional Medicare have been enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan. Too many seniors discover too late that MA's frequently-changing, narrow doctor networks expose them to substantial out-of-network costs, and that they are denied access to necessary care.
Medicare Advantage payments are inflated by "upcoding," which exaggerate patient health conditions; capitated payments incentivizing healthcare denial; and prior authorization requirements that delay and deny healthcare. Medicare Advantage "cherry-picking" selects the healthiest for coverage, and "lemon-dropping" rejects sicker patients.
The Affordable Care Act created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to conduct Medicare "innovative payment" experiments, modeled on "Managed Care" ACOs. Since first testing ACOs in 2005, CMS has authorized hundreds of private Managed Medicare ACO insurance models that amplify administrative costs. In 2023 the Congressional Budget Office reported that CMS experiments with "value-based" ACO payments failed to control costs, improve quality or increase equity, costing Medicare $5.4 billion more than it saved during its first decade.
An official CMS webpage titled "Fraud and Abuse Waivers” lists Innovation Center models that have been granted waivers to bypass fraud and abuse laws, to permit testing "innovative payment and delivery models" of healthcare—the better to milk the Medicare Trust Fund. CMS has invited the same investor-controlled insurance and Wall St. actors that drive Medicare Advantage overpayments to act as fiscal intermediaries between providers and patients within successive Trump DCE and Biden ACO REACH Alternative Payment Models.
Every administration since 2000 has welcomed some CMS administrators through Washington's Revolving Door. Prior to, or following government service, some have headed investor-backed health startups. Tom Scully, G.W. Bush's CMS head, oversaw privatized prescription drug benefits and Medicare Advantage before joining a private equity firm to capitalize on public dollars. Liz Fowler has rotated through the Revolving Door, between executive positions with insurance and pharmaceutical industries, alternately helping to draft both the Medicare Modernization and Affordable Care Acts, and subsequently returning to the Biden administration to oversee CMMI that she helped write into the ACA.
Even as CMS promotes experimentation with costlier multiple private payer models, they disregard single-risk-pool Medicare that alone has the economy of scale to provide sustainable universal health coverage, while permitting global budgeting and bulk medicine rate negotiations. Twenty-two studies report annual $600 billion Medicare-for-All administrative savings alone, enough to extend comprehensive health coverage to all ages.
Rather than improve and expand the promise of direct-payment Single-Payer Fee-For-Service—a model utilized by many advanced nations—CMS has promoted privatization of most public healthcare programs. Describing the goal of placing "100% of Traditional Medicare beneficiaries and the majority of Medicaid enrollees in accountable care relationships by 2030," CMS transfers Medicare recipients without their consent into private ACO REACH plans, "auto-aligning" Medicare enrollees with ACO-affiliated providers.
"Don't Bust Up Medicare and Turn It Over to the States," writes Kay Tillow of the latest misguided attempt to drain the Medicare Trust Fund, purportedly to achieve health care state by state.
If Health and Human Services, CMS and legislators fulfilled their responsibility to protect Medicare for the People, the plan would have been streamlined long ago. There would be no need for complicating costly supplemental insurance plans such as Parts A, B, C, D, and Medigap.
The non-profit law organization, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, defender of Traditional Medicare, affirms that "Few programs in the history of the United States have brought as much benefit to society as Medicare... Reforms to Medicare should honor and maintain its core values to ensure its continued success for future generations."
We must eliminate the greed of the market ethos, prioritize health as a human value, and support the aspiration of the Poor People's Campaign—i.e., an economy and healthcare for the people, eliminating continuous wealth transfer upward.
A traditional Medicare enrollee for over a decade, CMS recently notified me that my health provider has been moved to a MSSP ACO, where 11 million beneficiaries were reportedly transferred by 2023. To retain Traditional Medicare, recipients are forced to find independent providers not captured by ACO payment plans, and to do so before CMS drains the Medicare Trust Fund and totally destroys Medicare.
The authors of "The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America..." describe the corporate campaign to turn public goods and services into private profit-centers, paralleling the U.S. half-century $50 trillion wealth transfer upward. Promoting increasing commodification of healthcare, the U.S. is the only developed nation to place profiteering middlemen between patients and providers. Corporate/Wall St. exploitation of U.S. healthcare as a cash cow since 1980 has contributed to higher health costs and worse outcomes than other advanced nations.
A 1971 Oval Office conversation between President Nixon and John Ehrlichman augured misplaced healthcare priorities. Extolling the Kaiser CEO's profit-seeking, Ehrlichman enthused: "All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make."
Nixon's 1973 HMO Act ushered in "Managed Care" health models, including Health Maintenance Organizations, Accountable Care Organizations and Medicare Advantage, many morphing into "Managed Profit," because neoliberalism yields wealthcare not healthcare.
Since passage of the 1965 Medicare law, special interests inside and outside of government have continually bent the intent of Medicare in order to maximize corporate profits at the expense of taxpayers, seniors, and the disabled. With plutocratic intent Newt Gingrich in 1996 blithely forecast that privatization would cause Medicare to “wither on the vine.”
The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act was G.W. Bush's giveaway to the PhRMA and insurance industries. Even as it prohibited negotiation of bulk medicine rates, the MMA subsidized Medicare Advantage plans with extra billions of dollars annually siphoned from the Medicare Trust Fund, overcharging taxpayers up to $140 billion annually by 2023.
An obscure provision of MMA, the Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWP), furthers Medicare privatization by permitting employers to move retirees, without their consent, into for-profit Medicare Advantage plans. Retiree organizations in Vermont, New York, and Delaware have waged David vs. Goliath-style battles to preserve their Traditional Medicare coverage against the subterfuge of Medicare Advantage "modernization" of benefits, which actually represent benefits "reduction."
A 2023 report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) relates that privatized Medicare Advantage plans drain the Medicare Trust Fund, while increasing insurers' profits and reducing quality of patient care. Failing to protect Medicare's Trust Fund, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has failed to halt overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans. The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) cites CMS outreach and enrollment materials since 2017 that encourage beneficiaries to choose private Medicare Advantage plans over Traditional Medicare.
Excess Medicare Advantage payments fund supplemental benefits and heavy marketing to lure enrollees, while brokers are paid commissions twice as high to sell Medicare Advantage plans than to sell Medicare Medigap plans. Moneymaking schemes of both Medicare Advantage and the Affordable Care Act have employed deceptive marketing, sometimes switching people's insurance without their consent. Some seniors intending to enroll in Traditional Medicare have been enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan. Too many seniors discover too late that MA's frequently-changing, narrow doctor networks expose them to substantial out-of-network costs, and that they are denied access to necessary care.
Medicare Advantage payments are inflated by "upcoding," which exaggerate patient health conditions; capitated payments incentivizing healthcare denial; and prior authorization requirements that delay and deny healthcare. Medicare Advantage "cherry-picking" selects the healthiest for coverage, and "lemon-dropping" rejects sicker patients.
The Affordable Care Act created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to conduct Medicare "innovative payment" experiments, modeled on "Managed Care" ACOs. Since first testing ACOs in 2005, CMS has authorized hundreds of private Managed Medicare ACO insurance models that amplify administrative costs. In 2023 the Congressional Budget Office reported that CMS experiments with "value-based" ACO payments failed to control costs, improve quality or increase equity, costing Medicare $5.4 billion more than it saved during its first decade.
An official CMS webpage titled "Fraud and Abuse Waivers” lists Innovation Center models that have been granted waivers to bypass fraud and abuse laws, to permit testing "innovative payment and delivery models" of healthcare—the better to milk the Medicare Trust Fund. CMS has invited the same investor-controlled insurance and Wall St. actors that drive Medicare Advantage overpayments to act as fiscal intermediaries between providers and patients within successive Trump DCE and Biden ACO REACH Alternative Payment Models.
Every administration since 2000 has welcomed some CMS administrators through Washington's Revolving Door. Prior to, or following government service, some have headed investor-backed health startups. Tom Scully, G.W. Bush's CMS head, oversaw privatized prescription drug benefits and Medicare Advantage before joining a private equity firm to capitalize on public dollars. Liz Fowler has rotated through the Revolving Door, between executive positions with insurance and pharmaceutical industries, alternately helping to draft both the Medicare Modernization and Affordable Care Acts, and subsequently returning to the Biden administration to oversee CMMI that she helped write into the ACA.
Even as CMS promotes experimentation with costlier multiple private payer models, they disregard single-risk-pool Medicare that alone has the economy of scale to provide sustainable universal health coverage, while permitting global budgeting and bulk medicine rate negotiations. Twenty-two studies report annual $600 billion Medicare-for-All administrative savings alone, enough to extend comprehensive health coverage to all ages.
Rather than improve and expand the promise of direct-payment Single-Payer Fee-For-Service—a model utilized by many advanced nations—CMS has promoted privatization of most public healthcare programs. Describing the goal of placing "100% of Traditional Medicare beneficiaries and the majority of Medicaid enrollees in accountable care relationships by 2030," CMS transfers Medicare recipients without their consent into private ACO REACH plans, "auto-aligning" Medicare enrollees with ACO-affiliated providers.
"Don't Bust Up Medicare and Turn It Over to the States," writes Kay Tillow of the latest misguided attempt to drain the Medicare Trust Fund, purportedly to achieve health care state by state.
If Health and Human Services, CMS and legislators fulfilled their responsibility to protect Medicare for the People, the plan would have been streamlined long ago. There would be no need for complicating costly supplemental insurance plans such as Parts A, B, C, D, and Medigap.
The non-profit law organization, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, defender of Traditional Medicare, affirms that "Few programs in the history of the United States have brought as much benefit to society as Medicare... Reforms to Medicare should honor and maintain its core values to ensure its continued success for future generations."
We must eliminate the greed of the market ethos, prioritize health as a human value, and support the aspiration of the Poor People's Campaign—i.e., an economy and healthcare for the people, eliminating continuous wealth transfer upward.
A traditional Medicare enrollee for over a decade, CMS recently notified me that my health provider has been moved to a MSSP ACO, where 11 million beneficiaries were reportedly transferred by 2023. To retain Traditional Medicare, recipients are forced to find independent providers not captured by ACO payment plans, and to do so before CMS drains the Medicare Trust Fund and totally destroys Medicare.
"Working-class candidate v. billionaire political race. I'm here for it," wrote one longtime progressive strategist.
Dan Osborn, an Independent U.S. Senate candidate who struck a chord with working-class voters in Nebraska and came within striking distance of unseating his Republican opponent last year, announced Thursday that he's considering another run, this time challenging GOP Sen. Pete GOP Ricketts, who is up for election in 2026.
"We could replace a billionaire with a mechanic," Osborn wrote in a thread on X on Thursday. "I'll run against Pete Ricketts—if the support is there." Osborn said that he's launching an exploratory committee and would run as Independent, as he did in 2024.
Ricketts has served as a senator since 2023, and prior to that was the governor of Nebraska from 2015-2023. By one estimate, Ricketts has a net worth of over $165 million—though the wealth of his father, brokerage founder Joe Ricketts, and family is estimated to be worth $4.1 billion, according to Forbes.
A mechanic and unionist who helped lead a strike against Kellogg's cereal company, Osborn lost to Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) by less than 7 points in November 2024 in what became an unexpectedly close race.
Although he didn't win, he overperformed the national Democratic ticket by a higher percentage than other candidates running against Republicans in competitive Senate races, according to The Nation.
"Billionaires have bought up the country and are carving it up day by day," said Osborn Thursday. "The economy they've built is good for them, bad for us. Good for huge multinationals and multibillionaires. Bad for workers. Bad for small businesses, bad for family farmers. Bad for anyone who wants Social Security to survive. Bad for your PAYCHECK."
Osborn cast the potential race as between "someone who's spent his life working for a living and will never take an order from a corporation or a party boss" and "someone who's never worked a day in his life and is entirely beholden to corporations and party."
"We could take on this illness, the billionaire class, directly," he said.
Osborn, who campaigned on issues like Right to Repair and lowering taxes on overtime payments, earned praise from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who told The Nation in late November that Osborn's bid should be viewed as a "model for the future."
Osborn "took on both political parties. He took on the corporate world. He ran as a strong trade unionist. Without party support, getting heavily outspent, he got through to working-class people all over Nebraska. It was an extraordinary campaign," Sanders said.
In reaction to the news that Osborn is exploring a second run, a former Sanders campaign manager and longtime progressive Democratic strategist Faiz Shakir, wrote: "working-class candidate v. billionaire political race. I'm here for it."
Instead of strategically imposing tariffs, Trump has chosen to "give the country the most massive tax increase in its history, possibly exceeding $1 trillion on an annual basis."
As stocks "nosedived" on Thursday, economists, policymakers, and campaigners around the world continued to warn about the impacts of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war, which includes a 10% universal tariff for imports and steeper duties—that he claims are "reciprocal"—for dozens of countries, set to take effect over the next week.
"This is how you sabotage the world's economic engine while claiming to supercharge it," wrote Nigel Green, CEO of the international financial consultancy deVere Group. "Trump is blowing up the post-war system that made the U.S. and the world more prosperous, and he's doing it with reckless confidence."
As Bloomberg detailed after the president's "Liberation Day" remarks from the White House Rose Garden:
China's cumulative tariff rate of 54% includes both the 20% duty already charged earlier this year, added to the 34% levy calculated as part of Trump's so-called reciprocal plan, according to people familiar with the matter. The European Union's rate is 20% and Vietnam's is 46%, White House documents showed. Other nations slapped with larger tariffs include Japan with 24%, South Korea with 25%, India with 26%, Cambodia with 49%, and Taiwan with 32%.
In Europe on Thursday, "the regional Stoxx 600 index provisionally ended down around 2.7%," while "the U.K.'s FTSE 100 was down 1.6%, with France's CAC 40 and Germany's DAX posting deeper losses of 3.3% and 3.1%, respectively," according to CNBC.
In the United States, CNBC reported, "the broad market index dropped 4%, putting it on track for its worst day since September 2022. The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 1,200 points, or 3%, while the Nasdaq Composite fell 5%. The slide across equities was broad, with decliners at the New York Stock Exchange outnumbering advancers by 6-to-1."
American exceptionalism.
[image or embed]
— Justin Wolfers ( @justinwolfers.bsky.social) April 3, 2025 at 12:14 PM
However, as Economic Policy Institute (EPI) chief economist Josh Bivens noted last week, "because most households depend overwhelmingly on wages from work as their primary source of income and not returns from wealth-holding, the stock market tells us nothing about these households' economic situations."
And Trump's tariffs are expected to hit U.S. households hard, as the cost of his taxes on imports are passed on to consumers.
"Tariffs can be a legitimate and useful tool in industrial policy for well-defined strategic goals, but broad-based tariffs that significantly raise the average effective tariff rate in the United States are unwise," Bivens and EPI senior economist Adam Hersh stressed in a Thursday statement—which also called out Trump for mischaracterizing one of the think tank's 2022 analyses.
"Further, the second Trump administration's rationale, parameters, and timeline for tariffs have been ever-shifting," Bivens and Hersh continued. "As the original post cited by the administration argues, tariffs should not be a goal unto themselves, but a strategic tool to pair with other efforts to restore American competitiveness in narrowly targeted industrial sectors."
Instead of strategically imposing tariffs, Trump has chosen to "give the country the most massive tax increase in its history, possibly exceeding $1 trillion on an annual basis, which comes to $7,000 per household," warned Center for Economic and Policy Research co-founder and senior economist Dean Baker. "And this tax hike will primarily hit moderate and middle-income families. Trump's taxes go easy on the rich, who spend a smaller share of their income on imported goods."
Baker—like various other economists and journalists—also took aim at Trump's claims that the tariffs are reciprocal, explaining:
Trump's team calculated our trade deficit with each country and divided it by their exports to the United States. Trump decided that this figure was equal to that country's tariff on goods imported from the U.S.
Trump's method of calculating tariffs is comparable to the doctor who assesses your proper weight by dividing your height by your birthday. Any doctor who did this is clearly batshit crazy, and unfortunately so is our president. And apparently none of his economic advisers has the courage and integrity to set him straight or to resign.
However, outside Trump's administration, the intense criticism continued to mount, including from groups focused on combating the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, which also endangers the global economy.
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and Campaigns at 350.org, said Thursday that "Trump's tariffs won't slow the global energy transition—they'll only hurt ordinary people, particularly Americans."
"Despite his claims he 'gets' economic policy, his record tells a different story: Tariffs are tanking U.S. stocks and fueling inflation," Sieber added. "The transition to renewables is unstoppable, with or without him. His latest move does little to impact the booming clean energy market but will isolate the U.S. and drive up costs for American consumers."
Allie Rosenbluth, U.S. campaign manager at Oil Change International, similarly emphasized that "Trump's tariffs will hurt working families first and foremost, raising costs for essentials we depend on and threatening to plunge the U.S. economy into a recession. Though Trump pretends to care about the cost of living for ordinary people, his real loyalties lie with his fossil fuel industry donors."
"If he actually cared about energy affordability, he would stop bullying other countries into buying more U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), which boosts the fossil fuel industry's profits, but results in increased prices for domestic consumers and pushes us further toward climate catastrophe," she asserted. "The one step countries can take to hit Trump where it hurts most is wean off their dependency on fossil fuels from the United States."
The impact of Trump's new levies won't be limited to working-class people in the United States. Nick Dearden, director of U.K.-based Global Justice Now, pointed out that "Trump has set light to the global economy and unleashed a world of pain, not least on a group of developing countries that will suffer tremendous impoverishment as a result of his punitive tariffs."
"All those affected must come together and stand up to this bully by building a very different international economy that promotes the interests of ordinary people rather than the oligarchs standing behind Trump," he argued. "For all its scraping and crawling, the U.K. got no special treatment here, and the government should learn this lesson fast: They need to stop giving away our rights and protections in a futile effort to appease Donald Trump."
Leaders in the United States are also encouraging resistance to Trump. U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Wednesday that "this week you will read many confused economists and political pundits who won't understand how the tariffs make economic sense. That's because they don't. They aren't designed as economic policy. The tariffs are simply a new, super dangerous political tool."
Murphy made the case that "the tariffs are DESIGNED to create economic hardship. Why? So that Trump has a straight face rationale for releasing them, business by business or industry by industry. As he adjusts or grants relief, it's a win-win: the economy improves and dissent disappears."
"But as long as we see this clearly, we can stop him. Public mobilization is working. Today, a few Republicans joined Democrats to vote against one set of tariffs," he added, referring to a
resolution that would undo levies on Canadian imports. "The people still have the power."
"If you're a corporation in a favored industry, you can break the law. You can get caught. You can be prosecuted and sentenced with a $100 million fine, and it doesn't matter," said one consumer advocate.
In what could be a U.S. first, President Donald Trump last week pardoned a criminal corporation, a move that largely flew under the proverbial radar amid his pardon spree for white-collar criminals including at least one of his supporters.
On March 28, Trump pardoned HDR Global Trading, the owner and operator of the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX; company co-founders Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed; and former business development chief Gregory Dwyer.
The company and the four men hads each pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Bank Secrecy Act "by willfully failing to establish, implement, and maintain an adequate" anti-money laundering program, as required by law. In January, the U.S. Department of Justice sentenced BitMEX to a fine of $100 million, while the executives were sentenced to criminal probation and ordered to pay civil fines.
While experts noted that Trump acted within his rights to pardon the corporation, there is no known precedent for a president taking such action.
Trump's corporate pardon sends a clear message: “If you’re a corporation in a favored industry, you can break the law. You can get caught. You can be prosecuted and sentenced with a $100 million fine, and it doesn’t matter”
[image or embed]
— Rick Claypool (@rickclaypool.bsky.social) April 2, 2025 at 7:18 AM
Noting the U.S. Supreme Court's highly controversial 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling—which affirmed corporate personhood and the dubious notion that unlimited outside spending on political campaigns is free speech—Stanford Law School professor Bernadette Meyler told The Intercept that "while we have seen the rise of a trend of treating corporations as persons in other areas of law, we haven't seen that so far in the area of pardoning."
Kimberly Wehle, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and preeminent pardons expert, wrote for The Hill on Tuesday that the BitMEX pardons send the message that "companies involved in financial crimes don't have to worry about accountability under this president, as least when it comes to crypto, for reasons that he has no incentive to ever make known."
"BitMEX can continue its prior criminal practices with federal impunity, and maybe even rely on the pardon to thwart future investigations into related conduct by federal lawmakers or state prosecutors," Wehle added. "The biggest losers in this deal are, once again, the American people, including the more than 77 million who might finally be realizing that they voted for lawlessness last November."
"The biggest losers in this deal are, once again, the American people."
Brandon Garrett, a Duke University law professor specializing in corporate crime and punishment, told The Intercept that the BitMEX pardons are part of a wider pattern of impunity under Trump, who "now seems to be systematically pardoning corporate malefactors left and right without respect, really, to any real serious consideration about the merits of the cases [or] the larger policy implications of issuing these pardons."
As the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen recently noted, "The Trump administration has dropped, withdrawn, or halted investigations and enforcement actions against over 100 corporations in its first two months in office."
Beneficiaries include companies owned or led by Trump donors or allies, including private prison giant GEO Group; Zelle network banks JPMorgan and Bank of America; crypto firms Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, OpenSea, Ripple, and Robinhood; and Elon Musk's SpaceX.
"Trump's corporate pardons show the president's true base is the billionaire executives and corporate elites lining up to indulge their greed at the trough of Trump's corruption," Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool said last week. "Trump's soft-on-corporate crime approach invites a corporate crime spree and potentially catastrophic abuses for America's consumers, workers, and communities."
Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman added that the Trump administration's "effective no-enforcement policy against corporations virtually guarantees more financial scams, more workplace discrimination, more poisoning of the air and water, more food contamination, more fraud, more disease, and more preventable death."