5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
The Grave Danger—and Blinding Idiocy—of Trump's NSPM-7
We cannot predict exactly how this authoritaruan presidential memo will be implemented or provide legal advice on the specific questions groups and individuals may have, but here, we lay out what the Memo does not do, what it aims to do, and what it cannot do.
Oct 16, 2025
Nonprofits, their donors, and activists striving for a more equal, just, and fair country and world are core components of American civil society. Yet on September 25, President Donald Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) called “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” essentially adding them to an ever-growing list of what he calls the “enemy within.”
Civil society nonprofits and activists thus join segments of academia, the legal profession, public health professionals and scientists, and so many others President Trump sees as his political opponents and critics. For all of us seeking to uphold the Constitution, fundamental human rights, and civil liberties, it’s almost a badge of courage and honor.
On its face, NSPM-7 is chilling to read: If anyone needed proof that “terrorism” and “political violence” are slippery and fraught categories subject to political, ideological, and racial manipulation and bias—well, this is it.
Like the president’s investigation into the Open Society Foundations and his order purporting to designate “Antifa” as a “domestic terrorist organization,” which is not a thing!), NSPM-7 is a deliberate attempt to sow fear and intimidate and silence opposition to the president’s abuses. But true strength in this country comes not from political leaders engaged in fearmongering and political vendettas; it comes from our vibrant civil society, activists, and communities steadfastly pursuing the goals of equality, fairness, and democracy for all. We must not let ourselves be cowed.
The memo is a fever dream of conspiracies, outright falsehoods, and the president’s distorted equation of criticism of his policies by real or perceived political opponents with “criminal and terroristic conspiracies.”
We cannot predict exactly how the memo will be implemented or provide legal advice on the specific questions groups and individuals may have, but here, we lay out what the Memo does not do, what it aims to do, and what it cannot do.
The bottom line in cutting through the noise of reprehensible and irresponsible presidential rhetoric and actions is this: No president can rewrite the Constitution and the safeguards we have under it. These safeguards most emphatically include our First Amendment-protected freedoms of belief, speech, and association; our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; our Fifth Amendment right to due process; and our right to Equal Protection under the laws of this country. Under the 14th Amendment, these due process and equal protection rights apply equally to actions taken by federal and state agencies against tax-exempt nonprofits.
What NSPM-7 Does Not Do
A key thing to know is that the presidential memorandum does not create any new federal powers or crimes.
When the president refers in the memo to “designation” of groups as “domestic terrorism organizations,” that rhetorical label is dangerously stigmatizing and harsh, but it does not in itself have legal force and the president does not cite any authority for it. That is because, unlike for “foreign terrorism,” there is no “domestic terrorism” labelling or designation regime. Congress has passed no law creating any such domestic designation regime, and for very good reason: it would inevitably sweep in First Amendment-protected beliefs, associations, and speech. No matter where civil society groups and activists might fall across the ideological spectrum, from far left to far right, nonpartisan to partisan, religious or not, everyone’s First Amendment rights would be at risk. For that reason, there is also no standalone crime of “domestic terrorism.”
Put another way, any political, legal, or social definition of “terrorism” includes ideological motivation, and there are very serious First Amendment problems with attaching criminal or other sanctions to people or groups based on ideology or belief as opposed to actual, serious criminal conduct—which is already unlawful.
The fact remains: in this country, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and to act on them lawfully without fear of punishment, no matter how extreme or disfavored the government thinks those beliefs are.
What NSPM-7 Aims to Do
The memo is a fever dream of conspiracies, outright falsehoods, and the president’s distorted equation of criticism of his policies by real or perceived political opponents with “criminal and terroristic conspiracies.” It stitches together a few disparate, serious acts of actual or attempted criminal conduct with First Amendment-protected beliefs and protests against the president and his policies, and wrongly conflates them as “political violence.” It ignores what any responsible understanding of actual political violence would make clear: political violence does not fit into neat ideological buckets and while increasing in frequency, it remains rare. After all, the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by the president’s supporters is a paradigmatic example of actual political violence, but NSPM-7 pointedly fails even to mention it.
Perhaps the most chilling rhetorical move the president makes is to use vague, broad labels that, even if true—and there’s good reason to question the truth of virtually all of the memo’s assertions—encompass First Amendment-protected beliefs unconnected to any actual criminal conduct. These labels include: “Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” “support for the overthrow of” the federal government, “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and opposition to “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” The president even bizarrely imagines that “support for law enforcement and border control” are “foundational American principles” that his political opponents paint as “fascist” to encourage violence. No wonder many in civil society see NSPM-7’s rhetoric as a threat to human rights, civil liberties, and democracy-building work.
Through the memo, the president instructs federal departments and law enforcement agencies to use authorities they already have and focus them on investigations of civil society groups — including nonprofits, activists, and donors—to “disrupt” and “prevent” the president’s fever-dream version of “terrorism” and “political violence.”
NSPM-7 Uses Already Vague, Overbroad, and Abused Federal “Domestic Terrorism” Powers
To understand the fundamentals of these existing authorities—and how they are abused— it helps to know what is already on the books. When Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in 2001, it defined domestic terrorism as acts that are dangerous to human life and already criminal, which are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy or conduct. Again, this definition is not itself a “domestic terrorism” crime; federal agencies use it for investigative purposes.
As the ACLU and other rights groups have consistently criticized in the decades since 2001, federal agencies have used the Patriot Act “domestic terrorism” definition to claim expansive authorities to investigate and surveil people and groups with little or no factual, evidentiary basis, including those engaged in First Amendment-protected protest and other activities. Indeed, the Justice and Homeland Security Departments have for decades created categories of investigative priorities ostensibly focused on “violent extremists” with a variety of what the agencies describe as “ideological agendas”—ranging from “racially and ethnically motivated” to “anti-government/anti-authority” to “potential bias related to religion, gender, or sexual orientation,” and more.
In other words, abusive use of “domestic terrorism” investigative authority is not a new problem, but it is a serious one.
One important, concrete thing we can do for ourselves and our communities is, therefore, to educate people about the variety of scenarios in which they may encounter federal agencies and their rights in those scenarios—particularly if questioned by law enforcement agencies and when exercising the rights to free speech and protest. And if, in fact, an individual or group is actually investigated, invoke the right to a lawyer.
NSPM-7 Instructs Joint Terrorism Task Forces to Conduct Investigations
The memo instructs Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) to conduct investigations. Here, it helps to know what JTTFs are, the rights concerns they’ve long raised, and measures to help mitigate some of these issues.
JTTFs are FBI-operated task forces that are intended to work with state and local law enforcement agencies to conduct counterterrorism investigations. There are about 200 JTTFs throughout the country, including at least one in each of the FBI’s 56 field offices. They operate with little transparency or meaningful oversight and we have long raised serious red flags about their privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties violations.
JTTFs in major cities have monitored Black Lives Matter activists, targeted Muslims, journalists, and environmentalists for investigation, including with intimidating visits to their homes or workplaces and, in May 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr announced that JTTFs would be used in response to racial justice protests. It’s perhaps no surprise that President Trump would again use JTTFs to target real or perceived critics for surveillance and investigation.
The memo tells JTTFs to investigate “potential federal crimes relating to” “recruiting or radicalizing” people for what it describes as “political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights” as well as investigations of funders and their leadership. It widens an already open door to politicized rights-violating enforcement. It also assigns to JTTFs investigation of violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), a law requiring individuals or groups who are defined broadly as acting as “agents” of foreign governments or political entities to register with the government and disclose extensive information about their associations and activities. Government enforcement of FARA, too, has raised constitutional issues virtually since it was passed. FARA’s terms are so broad and vague that they raise concern it could be read to apply to nonprofits, journalists, and others with some “agency” connection to foreign groups or entities. Its registration and disclosure requirements could chill a wide range of speech on issues of public concern. As with the memo’s approach writ large, the government could selectively target speakers for their viewpoints in violation of the First Amendment. Again, it’s important to know your rights if approached, questioned, or investigated by federal law enforcement agents—whether they are part of a JTTF or not.
NSPM-7 Tasks Other Federal Departments and Agencies with Problematic Investigations
NSPM-7 also tasks other departments and agencies with investigations and actions that are already within their purview, and that could raise significant constitutional concerns depending on their implementation. We’ll be watching, for example, to see if NSPM-7’s instruction to the Justice Department to issue guidance on investigation of “politically-motivated” acts and “identification of any behaviors, fact patterns, recurrent motivations, or other indicia common to organizations and entities that coordinate these acts” results in investigations and retaliation for groups and people engaging in First Amendment-protected activities.
The memo also instructs the Treasury Department and IRS to pursue investigations using their existing authorities. It’s worth emphasizing that in a tax code provision aptly titled “Prohibition on Executive Branch Influence over Taxpayer Audits and Investigations,” Congress made it a felony for top officials, including the president, to use the IRS for politically-motivated retaliatory investigation and actions. In any event, anticipating the harm to nonprofits and tax-exempt groups from unwarranted investigations, civil society groups have already issued guidance on compliance and preparation.
How State and Local Governments Can Help Protect Residents from Federal Abuses
States and local governments can also act to protect their residents and the nonprofit and tax-exempt groups in their states: They can end or limit their participation in JTTFs and other similar joint federal, state, and local law enforcement investigative and surveillance partnerships. They can prohibit or limit data-sharing with federal agencies through these partnerships. At a minimum, states and local governments must make agreements governing these partnerships with federal agencies public.
Indeed, police forces in some of the nation’s largest cities, including Atlanta, San Francisco, Oakland, and Portland, have chosen to leave or limit cooperation with JTTFs because of disputes with federal officials over transparency and accountability for abuses. That’s in part because these task forces are structured to deputize state and local law enforcement officers so they act with the authority and immunities of federal agents—sometimes anywhere in the country. Because state and local laws may provide stronger protections for residents’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties than federal law, JTTFs can effectively function to shield state and local officers from accountability for violations of their own states’ laws.
In short, by withdrawing from or limiting participation in JTTFs and other federal-state task forces, state and local governments can both protect residents and ensure their own oversight over their law enforcement agencies.
Why NSPM-7 Cannot Rewrite Our Constitutional Rights
The president cannot rewrite the Constitution by memo or otherwise. No matter what the president says or tries to do through NSPM-7, the First Amendment constrains what federal agencies can do when it comes to punishing groups and people for exercising their rights to free speech, peaceful protest, and supporting causes by making donations. It also safeguards against viewpoint-based government discrimination, coercion, and retaliation.
If any U.S. group or person is investigated or prosecuted, the Constitution guarantees the right to due process—requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge wrongful government conduct. And if, for example, a particular group or organization is targeted based on protected characteristics—race, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity—the right to equal protection under the laws and other rights would apply. Under the 14th Amendment, these due process and equal protection rights also apply to federal and state agencies’ actions against tax-exempt nonprofits.
In short, no president—of any party—should have the power to punish nonprofit organizations and activists simply because he disagrees with them. Sadly, however, the government using intimidation tactics against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties is not new in this country’s history. Extreme as the memo is, it echoes past and ongoing abuses of executive power.
For example, the president’s strategy “to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations” harkens straight back to the Civil Rights Era, when J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI launched a top-secret program “to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” Black leaders, civil rights groups, and protest, particularly when it was Black and student-led. That Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), grew to encompass also-discriminatory and unwarranted investigations of labor unions, and Native American, Latino, and other rights and social justice groups. Eventually, the massively rights-violating law enforcement abuses of the Civil Rights Era resulted in a landmark congressional investigation, called the Church Committee, and an overhaul of national security and intelligence agencies and their authorities that was intended to protect civil liberties and rights.
But in the post-9/11 era, presidents, agencies themselves, and Congress undid many of those post-Civil Rights Era national security and intelligence-agency reforms. And in many ways, the story of the last 20 years is a story of how Black, brown, and Muslim communities and groups bore the brunt of the resulting executive branch abuses. These abuses spread—as government abuses do—to AAPI communities, racial and social justice activists, environmental and animal rights movements, pro-Palestinian groups and activists, and so many others with beliefs the government has deemed unpopular or controversial.
Ultimately, we need another generational overhaul of federal agencies’ law enforcement and intelligence authority, which can only come from Congress, and pressure from all of us to achieve it. Until then, we can arm ourselves with knowledge and a recognition that chilling as NSPM-7 is, and painful and difficult though its implementation may well prove to be, it contains nothing that we have not seen before. Civil society groups and activists have worked hard to survive other similar moments in our history. We must do so again, in solidarity with nonprofit groups and leaders who are or will be unjustly and illegally targeted by the Trump administration. No president can take that away from us.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Blame the Escalating Gerrymander Wars on Chief Justice John Roberts
Nobody has done more damage to US democracy and voting rights in the 21st Century than this one despicable jurist.
Oct 16, 2025
America is currently at war over partisan gerrymandering. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature has just gerrymandered voting districts to create five more safe Republican US House seats, as demanded by Trump.
Then Missouri Republicans were ordered by Trump to enact a gerrymander to increase the states' disproportionate Republican minority from 6-2 to 7-1 by cutting Democratic-leaning Kansas City voting districts down the middle. Now JD Vance is urging Indiana Republicans to gerrymander the only two remaining Democratic House districts out of existence.
In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a ballot measure that would temporarily suspend California's independent redistricting commission until 2030 and let the Democratic legislature redistrict Republicans out of five seats to match what Republicans have done in Texas.
A large majority of voters nationally don't think partisan gerrymandering should be legal. According to a recent YouGov poll, 69% of Americans think partisan gerrymandering should be illegal and only 9% think it should be legal.
Chief Justice John Roberts (and all of his Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court) disagree with this vast majority of Americans. In 2019, Roberts' 5-4 majority opinion in Rucho v Common Cause (joined by the four other Republicans on the Court) held that federal courts do not have the constitutional power to prevent partisan gerrymandering and restored blatantly partisan gerrymanders in North Carolin and Maryland.
Since Roberts' decision, partisan gerrymandering has exploded. According to Michael Li of the Brennan Center, partisan gerrymandering has given Republicans 16 extra seats in the House. Without that, Democrats would have a House majority and Republicans would not be able to pass the so-called "big beautiful bill" which has led to a government shutdown. As the Brennan Center states, "Gerrymandering decided House control."
Roberts' opinion conceded that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic institutions” and “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.” But Roberts then invented a procedural technicality to bar Federal courts from doing anything about it or to uphold the Constitutional principle of "one person, one vote." Roberts claimed that partisan gerrymandering is a so-called "political question" that Federal Courts have no right to question and must be left to the states. Of course, when one party controls the state legislature, they have every incentive to draw voting districts to guarantee they never lose political power, no matter what the view of the voters is. Voters don't get to pick their own legislators. Instead, legislators get to pick their voters. In her dissent—joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer—Justice Kagan wrote:
"For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because he thinks the task is beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the right participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance their political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy...enabl[ing] politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters' preferences...They encouraged a politics of polarization and disfunction."
Is it any wonder that a NY Times/Siena poll taken last week found that only 33% of voters believe that America's political system can still address the nation's problems, while 64% believe the political system is too politically divided to solve the nation's problems?
As former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Lisa Graves argues in a new book, "[i]n the last twenty years the US Supreme Court has radically curtailed voting rights, undermined anti-corruption measures, encouraged extreme political gerrymandering, restricted the regulation of guns, and obliterated the constitutional right to control one’s reproductive choices. This transformation was orchestrated by a billionaire-backed reactionary political movement, whose interests Chief Justice John Roberts has been all too willing to serve."
Citizens have no power to overturn a US Supreme Court decision. However, California citizens have the ability to equalize Texas Republicans' gerrymander of five House seats. On November 4, they can pass Proposition 50 which lets the State legislature temporarily draw new congressional district maps through 2030, at which point the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would resume control of redistricting, and supports nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.
It won't completely block John Roberts' 20-year long project to undermine democracy and judicially enact the increasingly MAGA Republican agenda. (It wouldn't be an exaggeration to call it a "judicial coup".) Indeed, this week SCOTUS heard oral arguments in a case where it appears that Roberts will lead the Republican majority to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which protects the right of Black voters to have electoral representation. Such a ruling could likely flip as many as 19 House seats from Democratic to Republican, cementing a Republican House majority for the foreseeable future, regardless of the will of the voters.
Passing Proposition 50 is one thing Californians can do to fight back against Justice Roberts' undemocratic judicial campaign, which has helped enable Trump's authoritarianism. Mail-in ballots have already been sent out so California voters can cast "Yes" votes for Proposition 50 from now until November 4. Beyond that, thanks to John Roberts and his Republican colleagues on SCOTUS, other Blue states will have to be brought into the gerrymander wars and enact their own partisan gerrymanders to balance Republican gerrymanders to the extent possible.
Keep Reading
Show Less
What It Was Like to Captain a Vessel in the Global Sumud Flotilla
The Global Sumud Flotilla was sailing to Gaza. If I joined, they could bring one more vessel. From the first, it felt inevitable.
Oct 16, 2025
I got the call while balanced on a ladder installing air conditioners for the new youth center in southern Palestine. There was going to be a new flotilla to Gaza—bigger than all the others combined—and they desperately needed sailing captains. I’d have to be on the ground in Barcelona within three weeks. My friends at the youth center didn’t want me to go, insisting there was so much that needed doing within Palestine; if I joined the flotilla, I might be banned from ever returning.
My mind was made up, though. The work in the West Bank and the Naqab was important, but meanwhile hundreds of people were dying every day in Gaza. I could always keep installing air conditioners, teaching self-defense classes, and doing protective presence work on farms—but my real skills lay elsewhere. I had a captain’s licence and a dozen years working on the ocean. The Global Sumud Flotilla was sailing to Gaza. If I joined, they could bring one more vessel. From the first, it felt inevitable.
I hit the ground in Barcelona at a run. Well, sort of. I spent the first afternoon upside down in a quarter berth fixing hydraulics, skinning my knuckles in the familiar poses of boat yoga. That night, a bunch of captains fanned out to other ports to sail more vessels to our central hub. The workload increased every day as more and more boats arrived, and folks showed up from every corner of the world to help. We quickly established teams, and a frenzied camaraderie emerged that will bind us together for life.
Then, we sailed.
“It was the Storm of the Century!” my seasick passenger was wailing at me. “I wanted to do this to have an adventure, to go to Gaza, not to take RISKS!” I stared at her. “Not to take risks?” She realized how ridiculous that sounded. “Well, I’m willing to take risks with the Occupation Forces, but not with the ocean,” she amended.
It took the Israel Occupation Forces 12 hours to capture us all, despite hammering us with water cannons, skunk water, and sending their special forces to board and arrest us.
It wasn’t the storm of the century, just a nasty little gale—but it did cause our untested flotilla an outsized number of problems. Hasty fixes done in port by volunteers don’t always hold up in bad weather at sea. Things broke at a rather alarming rate on all the vessels, and some were forced to turn back immediately. On the Mikeno, we had our share of small issues, and all our participants were down below vomiting. My two crew managed a heroic bucket brigade, and kept the fish food splashing over the side until dawn broke clear and beautiful over the Balearic Islands.
Luckily, that was the worst bit of wind Poseidon threw at us during the whole trip. We faced firebombs in Tunisia, drone attacks with explosives and mysterious chemicals off of Crete, and constant threats from the occupation government. By the time we finally got to the Eastern Mediterranean and had a clear course laid for Gaza’s shore, those of us who remained were hardened and determined. One last boat, the Johnny M, sank in calm weather on that stretch. I sailed over to them, picked up their crew, and we kept forging ahead.
When the interception forces began to hit us 75 miles from Gaza’s shores, we were well drilled in nonviolent resistance tactics. It took the Israel Occupation Forces 12 hours to capture us all, despite hammering us with water cannons, skunk water, and sending their special forces to board and arrest us.
In prison, we went on hunger strike, sang revolutionary songs all night, and refused to bow to their guns and dogs. Some of us were seriously beaten, many were deprived of critical medicines, and legal representation was almost nonexistent. But our comrades around the world stood up, blocked ports, shut down cities on many continents, and inundated the Zionist consulates with calls and emails.
Members of the Gaza Sumud Flotilla return from Israeli prison. (Photo by Bill Lee)
So here we are, free again and ready to escalate the struggle.
Keep Reading
Show Less
How Taxing Billionaires Can Help Prevent Government Shutdowns
Until Congress addresses the fundamental power imbalance allowing billionaires to benefit from—and drive—government dysfunction, Americans will remain trapped in a game of shutdown chicken.
Oct 16, 2025
Most people are surprised to learn government shutdowns, and the ensuing fingerpointing, haven’t always been a mainstay of American politics. To understand how we got to this point, we must first examine who benefits from shutdowns.
For decades, conservatives in Congress have used one manufactured budget crisis after another to drive a narrative that the government doesn’t work—while quietly enriching their billionaire backers.
The most recent example came just before August recess, when House Republicans advanced a little-noticed government funding bill to gut the Internal Revenue Service base budget by $2.8 billion. Translation? Roll out the red carpet for tax cheats with nine-figure bank accounts.
The numbers don’t lie. In 1990, before shutdown politics became normalized, America had 66 billionaires controlling $240 billion. Today, roughly 700 billionaires hoard over $7 trillion—a 28-fold explosion in wealth. As billionaire wealth exploded, the total share of wealth controlled by the bottom half of the country shrank.
We must tax billionaires to break up the dangerous concentration of wealth that allows them to hold our democracy and economy hostage.
This wasn’t accidental. It happened in part because government dysfunction means big paydays for America’s ultra wealthy, who take advantage of shutdowns and spending cuts to evade taxes, skirt consumer protections to maximize profits, and promote privatization. The current shutdown paused antitrust cases that could break up Amazon and Apple, for instance.
Unsurprisingly, the ultra-wealthy beneficiaries of shutdown chaos are often major donors to far right GOP politicians and outside organizations lobbying for that chaos.
For example, billionaires Jeffrey Yass and Robert Mercer are two of the biggest funders of Club for Growth, a key hard-right group behind the GOP-led 2013 shutdown over the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The ACA wasn’t just healthcare reform—it also raised billions of dollars in new taxes from ultra-wealthy households. Shutting down the government over its possible repeal would have been a no-brainer for Yass and Mercer, both of whom were also engaged in legally questionable tax-avoidance schemes at the time.
In the Club for Growth’s view, repealing the ACA and its taxes on the ultra rich was a win. A shutdown that froze IRS audits and enforcement was a win. Allowing the government to reopen only after Democrats conceded to deep spending cuts was a win. Dysfunction that “proved” the inability of government to function efficiently was a win. The only losers would be the American people.
While the demands in shutdowns vary, the crisis often only resolves with Democrats accepting GOP spending cuts that weaken regulatory capacity and benefit wealthy industries at the expense of everyday Americans.
Conservatives have learned they might lose their nominal objective—like cuts to Medicare or repealing the ACA. But by drawing attention away from their attacks on good government, they win by losing.
While the March 2025 partisan funding bill avoided a shutdown, it slashed $13 billion from domestic priorities, gutted IRS enforcement funding to target wealthy tax cheats, and hobbled regulatory agencies that safeguard working families—while simultaneously empowering the Trump administration (and billionaire allies like Elon Musk’s DOGE) with broad discretion to reallocate remaining funds at will.
Working people are frustrated by this toxic game. We must tax billionaires to break up the dangerous concentration of wealth that allows them to hold our democracy and economy hostage.
Taxing billionaires is a consensus issue, with support rising sharply as the consequences of unchecked, extreme wealth play out.
Recent Impact Research polling found broad and intense support for raising taxes on billionaires among likely voters in 2026 battleground congressional districts and states. And a recent Morning Consult poll found that even 70% of Republicans believe “the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes”—up from 62% just six years ago.
Until Congress addresses the fundamental power imbalance allowing billionaires to benefit from—and drive—government dysfunction, Americans will remain trapped in a game of shutdown chicken. It’s time to tax billionaires and return the power to the people.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular