

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.
"Data centers don't use water," laughed Howard Lutnick during an interview. In fact, across seven states, they rely on about 3.4 trillion gallons of it per year.
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, told a brazen lie on Wednesday while trying to defend the administration's support for rapid data center expansion amid growing public backlash from voters concerned about their extreme electricity and water use.
Asked on CNBC's "SquawkBox" about how politicians in both parties were responding to voter outrage, Lutnick laughed the concerns off.
"One of my favorite things is when people talk about data centers using water," Lutnick chuckled. "The number one product in America that uses water is cattle."
"I mean, data centers don't use water," Lutnick continued. "This is propaganda by our adversaries to try to slow us down."
Lutnick is correct that beef cattle production—which uses about 6 trillion gallons per year, according to the US Department of Agriculture—involves much greater amounts of water consumption than data centers.
But the contention that data centers "don't use water" is egregiously false. A report out Tuesday from the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit water policy research organization, found that data centers in the US directly use anywhere from 270 to 3.9 million gallons of water per day.
About 74% of that water, which is withdrawn from local sources near the data center, is consumed rather than returned to the same watershed, the report found.
The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that in 2023, US data centers directly consumed about 17 billion gallons of water. Since then, data center capacity in the US has more than doubled, according to the commercial real estate firm CBRE.
Water directly consumed by data centers also only represents a fraction of their overall demand. Most of the water being used is not directly pumped into the centers to cool servers, but is used for the power generation that supplies the centers.
A report out last month from the corporate sustainability organization Ceres found that across the seven US states that host about half of all US data centers—Virginia, Texas, California, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio, and Arizona—the facilities depend on 3.4 trillion gallons of freshwater for electricity generation per year.
Lutnick's comparison of national water use between data centers and cattle farming also overlooks that the effects are often concentrated heavily in the areas where data centers are located.
In Newton County, Georgia, for instance, families told The New York Times that shortly after Meta broke ground on a $750 million data center project in 2018, their taps began to run dry, and water rates soared. According to Meta's environmental data, the center withdrew about 146 megaliters, or 38.6 million gallons, of water in 2024.
In Fayette County, Georgia, residents complained of low water pressure only to find that a QTS data center had covertly used about 29 million gallons of water without paying for it, far exceeding the amount agreed upon during the planning process. The company was ultimately required to pay back nearly $150,000.
In New Carlisle, Indiana, about a dozen residents reported that their wells had gone dry during the construction of Amazon Web Services' massive data center campus. One resident told the Indy Star that she'd gone 18 months without running water and had to bathe using bottled water from the store.
Lutnick's claim doesn't just contradict the facts, but his own statements from just over a year ago on Fox News, as MeidasTouch senior digital editor Acyn Torabi noted.
Attempting to promote data centers as a vehicle for job growth, the secretary emphasized that "these AI things suck water" and that they will "need a plumber."
The Trump administration has made the rapid expansion of data centers central to its "AI Action Plan." But Trump and his team have struggled to sell the vision to voters, including in their own party.
A national survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center last month found that 61% of voters oppose the construction of new data centers in their area. That included 69% of Democrats, but also 54% of Republicans, and 53% of independents.
Critics described Lutnick's dismissive remarks about voters' concerns as a sign of how out of touch the administration was with the public on this issue and how much their data center PR push is failing.
Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) said it showed that "our government is being run by morons."
One voting rights advocate said the administration "is abusing the Census Bureau data to generate sensational headlines that Trump wants."
As he gears up to sow doubt about this year's midterms, President Donald Trump is once again attempting to use the government to lend legitimacy to his long-debunked claims that he was cheated out of the 2020 election.
In a Tuesday post to Truth Social, Trump shared a report from the US Census Bureau, which he said "proves that over 24,000 Noncitizens voted illegally" after an analysis of 128 million voter records.
"I WON THE ELECTION," he declared, adding that the bureau would soon analyze the remaining 32 million voting records and that the number of illegitimate votes would "explode."
The report Trump was referring to was real, but highly unusual. The seven-page document posted on the Census Bureau website did not list any authors.
While the use of the "Census Bureau" label implies an air of seriousness and professionalism, Misty Heggeness, a former senior adviser for the Census Bureau, told Democracy Docket that the lack of clear authorship signified that it was "suspect of any integrity or rigor" and said it would be hard to trust unless career bureau staff put their name on it.
Sure enough, NPR reported on Wednesday that "work on the analysis was not conducted by career civil servants at the Census Bureau, and the team behind it included individuals affiliated with the America First Policy Institute," a Trump-aligned think tank that has helped to turn the president's election denial narrative into Republican policy.
The group has helped to push for aggressive voting rights restrictions in states, and its director for "election integrity" policy, Thomas Lane, was involved in the effort to create a slate of fake electors in Arizona, one of several states where Trump claimed to have won in 2020.
Earlier this year, according to CNN, Trump "installed a group of partisan analysts" from AFPI inside the Census Bureau. But their identities have not been publicly disclosed, and other bureau officials who spoke to NPR did not identify which AFPI officials worked on the new report "because they fear retaliation at work."
Bureau officials told CNN that the lack of listed authors suggests that the career employees were "sidelined."
Experts who reviewed the report have identified several "fatal" flaws that make its conclusions difficult to take seriously.
The authors of the report used a commercial voter database and matched its records to those from the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security, and matched noncitizen records to those identified as voters in 2020.
As Yunior Rivas and Jim Saksa of Democracy Docket explained, there are numerous problems with this approach:
Record matching... is fallible. The Census Bureau previously published research in 2014 specifically devoted to measuring false matches in the same identification system...
Census researchers have previously warned that the likelihood of successfully linking administrative records can vary across demographic groups, potentially introducing bias when researchers analyze only records they can confidently match.
That limitation is particularly significant when the result in question is relatively small compared with the enormous volume of records being searched: A mistaken link between an eligible citizen’s voter record and another person’s immigration record could produce a false positive.
The report also does not address another obvious danger: mistaking a naturalized citizen for a noncitizen due to an older immigration record... If evidence of a person’s citizenship is missing or fails to link correctly, the methodology can treat the existing noncitizen record as evidence of the person’s status at the time they voted. The report does not estimate how frequently such a misclassification could occur.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a fellow at the American Immigration Council noted that the system used to find noncitizen voters is "riddled with false positives." According to the Texas Tribune, when states like Texas and Missouri used the tool, it resulted in hundreds of voters being flagged incorrectly.
But even if the Census Bureau report were factually bulletproof, it would be far short of what Trump needs to claim that he "won" the election. The number of supposedly illegitimate votes is not anywhere near enough to swing the result in any of the states where Trump lost to former President Joe Biden, who won the national popular vote by more than 7 million.
The report claims to have found 1,100 noncitizen votes in Arizona, which Biden won by 10,457; 400 noncitizen votes in Georgia, which Biden won by 11,779; and 500 noncitizen votes in Wisconsin, which Biden won by 20,682. Since voting is secret, there is also no basis to assume that all of these votes went to Biden.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose department contains the Census Bureau, has said the report was "just the beginning" and that the next one "will likely show tens of thousands of additional illegal voters.”
But the first report says it analyzed the vast majority of those who voted in 2020. Assuming that the remaining 32 million votes had similar match rates, it would only generate about 6,000 more supposedly illegitimate votes.
Even if every single one of those votes went for Biden, which can't be proved, it would still not be enough to swing a single state to Trump, let alone enough for him to declare victory.
Trump used this report to call for Congress to pass his "SAVE America Act," which would abolish most forms of mail-in voting and introduce new proof of citizenship requirements that voting rights experts have warned would lead millions of eligible voters to be wrongly kicked off the rolls.
He has also signed an executive order directing states to verify their voter lists against a federal citizenship verification system that has been found to erroneously flag many eligible voters.
Amanda Carpenter, an editor at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, said the Census Bureau report was "nothing but junk data science" and that Lutnick "is abusing the Census Bureau data to generate sensational headlines that Trump wants."
"He has been searching for these massive pots of fraudulent votes for years," Carpenter said. "It is like they are looking for the Loch Ness Monster. It does not exist, but they keep searching, and hoping, and lying and pointing to something shadowy that you kind of have to squint real hard at to pretend is there, but it isn't."
"These seeming conflicts raise serious questions about whether these federal employees are beholden to the American people or to the interests of private for-profit corporations," said one of the authors.
More than 1-in-4 senior appointees in President Donald Trump’s Department of Commerce have significant “conflicts of interest,” according to a report published on Wednesday, pointing to the same sort of corporate capture that is rampant across the administration.
The watchdog group Public Citizen reviewed financial disclosure forms for 112 senior officials in the department, which is dedicated to overseeing industry and economic growth. It found that at least 30 of them have substantial ties to the very industries that the department is tasked with regulating.
It’s a pattern seen across the Trump administration, where fossil fuel lobbyists and insiders dominate the Energy and Interior departments, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.
But as the new report, written by journalist Zach Everson and researcher Douglas S. Pasternak, explains, the Commerce Department is “unique in its active engagement in the economy to benefit particular companies, including those for whom its current officials once worked.”
“The conflicts of interest identified in this report put Americans at risk,” said Pasternak, the research director for Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project.
The entanglements start at the top, with the billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has ties to more than 800 different businesses from his decades as the CEO of the Wall Street financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, with interests spanning finance, real estate, crypto, AI, tech, satellites, energy, and gaming—many of which could be affected by Commerce policy.
While Lutnick promised to sell his business interests within 90 days of being confirmed at the department, he missed that deadline by more than four months. And instead of putting his financial stake into a blind trust, he sold his interest in the fund to trusts benefiting his four children.
As Commerce Secretary, Lutnick has engaged in actions that the report says "have a clear conflict with his family’s financial interests and appear to violate ethical norms for government employees."
In particular, it highlights his role in pushing for the dramatic expansion of artificial intelligence data centers across the US, and pressured other governments, including that of the United Arab Emirates, to invest in them.
At the same time, his former company, Newmark, where his son now sits on the board of directors, has facilitated more than $25 billion in AI-data center deals.
Similarly, Commerce invested over $1.6 billion in the mineral company USA Rare Earth Inc. while Cantor was leading the company's private fundraising.
Lutnick has also been at the center of the Trump administration's efforts to promote cryptocurrency and develop regulatory policy around it. This could impact the blockchain platform Tether, which hosts the world's largest stablecoin, for which Cantor acts as the primary custodian for more than $180 billion worth of reserves.
Beyond Lutnick, the department is crawling with ex-industry employees, lobbyists, and corporate lawyers now embedded in the regulation of their former clients.
Joyce Meyer, formerly a top lobbyist for the life insurance industry, now serves as undersecretary for economic affairs, where she oversees the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Census Bureau, which produce economic reports that shape federal tax, interest, and spending policy.
The current undersecretary for industry and security, Jeffrey Kessler—who oversees export controls on technology, software, commodities, and other equipment—previously worked as an attorney for the law firm WilmerHale, where he represented dozens of clients across industries he now regulates, including Boeing, Meta, and Eli Lilly.
One of the people in charge of regulating the sale of defense technology abroad, Joe Bartlett, who serves as deputy undersecretary at the Bureau of Industry and Security, came from one of the US military’s biggest drone makers, Skydio, which is subject to BIS export controls.
The report also identifies multiple other employees who have worked for weather data companies that have pushed to privatize forecasts now provided for free by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"It is unclear if these officials are serving the American public as their positions require or attempting to enrich their former employers or potential future employers, and ultimately themselves," Pasternak said. "These seeming conflicts raise serious questions about whether these federal employees are beholden to the American people or to the interests of private for-profit corporations.”
Everson added that the department "is meant to work in the interest of the people, not in the interest of a few select billionaires.”
He said, "Political appointees within the Trump administration need to be subject to standards of ethical and financial conduct which prevent them from using their positions of power to skim off the top.”
The president's true criticism about birth tourism is not that it is occurring—it’s that someone else is profiting from it.
On April 1, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the class-action lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
Trump insists that this ban is necessary to stop birth tourism. This refers to the practice of traveling to another country to give birth, thereby allowing the child to automatically acquire citizenship. Via TruthSocial, Trump writes: “Birthright Citizenship has to do with the babies of slaves, not Chinese Billionaires who have 56 kids, all of whom ‘become’ American Citizens. One of the many Great Scams of our time!”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has raised similar concerns. He remarks, “Media reported as early as 2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500—500—birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China, whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.”
However, despite their criticisms, the Trump administration has effectively launched their own birth tourism venture: the “Trump Gold Card,” a visa program that expedites the process for those “who have demonstrated their ability and desire to advance the interest of the United States” by donating $1 million dollars and paying a $15,000 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) processing fee. The “Trump Corporate Gold Card” requires a $2 million contribution paid by a corporation “or similar entity” on behalf of the individual. There is even a “Trump Platinum Card” reportedly coming soon. That card will require a $5 million contribution and makes the visa holder exempt from paying US taxes on non-US income for 270 days.
Trump is not ending birth tourism. His true goal is to seize control of the market by monopolizing the pathways to legal residency and citizenship.
Once approved, either variant of the Gold Card provides successful applicants with “lawful permanent resident status” as an EB-1 or EB-2 visa holder. (Specific details for the Platinum Card are not yet available, but presumably it would grant recipients permanent resident status as well.)
This is significant because of how it relates to Trump’s birthright ban. The Trump administration alleges that the 14th Amendment only grants citizenship to those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US by virtue of owing it “direct and immediate allegiance” and receiving “protection” from it. The children of US citizens and lawful permanent residents meet this standard because their parents have “a permanent domicile.”
Trump’s birthright executive order explicitly carves out this exception: “Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.”
Importantly then, the US-born children of Trump Gold Card recipients will be automatically granted citizenship at birth—this is true regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.
Trump is not ending birth tourism. His true goal is to seize control of the market by monopolizing the pathways to legal residency and citizenship. This is a hostile takeover. While Trump decries the problem of “Chinese billionaires” scamming the US to get citizenship for their children, his Gold Card programs allow them to directly purchase it. After all, who else but a multimillionaire or billionaire could afford the $1 million (or $5 million) price tag? Once they obtain lawful permanent resident status, what stops them from giving birth to “56 kids” in the US?
The “Corporate Gold Card” paves the way for even relatively poorer immigrants to gain permanent residency so long as they have skills that companies desire. Rather than curtailing the birth tourism market, Trump is expanding it!
Moreover, a Gold Card applicant may include their spouse or unmarried children (under 21 years old), thereby ensuring they too “receive all of the privileges conferred” by the program. While each family member is subject to another $15,000 DHS processing fee and a $1 million donation, this is unlikely to be a barrier for the ultra wealthy.
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick claims, “Our immigration system should put Americans first. That’s exactly why the Trump Gold Card is a major win for our country.” Trump likewise exclaims: “Wealthy people will be coming into our country by buying this card. They’ll be wealthy, and they’ll be successful, and they’ll be spending a lot of money, and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people.”
The irony is that Trump wants wealthy, successful, and talented people to migrate to the US. He wants this regardless of how much his anti-immigrant base despises it. His criticism about birth tourism is not that it is occurring—it’s that someone else is profiting from it.
Ultimately, the Gold Card is gaudy, illegal Trump-branded birth tourism. If Trump were serious about tackling this issue, he would immediately end his pay-for-stay scheme. But he won’t. He will insist, despite any evidence, that birth tourism is rampant and poses an existential threat to the nation; while, at the same time, getting in on the action himself. This isn’t because Trumpian birth tourism is superior or better for the nation. It’s because it’s better for him. In the end, there is only one citizen that Trump truly cares about: himself.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen told Howard Lutnick he "misled the country and the Congress" when he claimed to have cut off ties with the billionaire sex offender.
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary admitted during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday that he lied to the public about his relationship with the billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was his next-door neighbor for 13 years.
As suspicion swirled around the president over his own ties to the infamous predator, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed on a podcast last year that he'd been horrified after meeting Epstein once at his New York City apartment in 2005, during which he said the financier made sexual innuendoes and showed off his massage table to Lutnick and his wife.
Lutnick said he then vowed to “never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again." He added: “I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn’t going, because he’s gross."
But emails released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) late last month have revealed that Lutnick maintained a relationship with Epstein until 2018, just a year before his death in jail, and a full decade after the financier had been convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute.
Not only did Lutnick meet with Epstein for drinks and meals on multiple occasions and go into business with him, but he also made arrangements in 2012 to meet with Epstein on his private Caribbean island, where victims say sexual abuse of minors was rampant.
After facing bipartisan calls to resign from his post amid the new revelations, Lutnick appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, where he again attempted to wriggle out of the accusation that he'd remained cozy with Epstein.
"Of these millions and millions of documents, there may be 10 connecting me with him... over a 14-year period," Lutnick said. "I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person, OK?"
Unconvinced by the denial, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Lutnick if he'd ever made the visit to Epstein's island that was outlined in the 2012 email.
Lutnick admitted he did, in fact, have lunch with Epstein during what he described as a "family vacation."
"My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple. They were there as well with their children. And we had lunch on the island," he admitted.
He said they were there for about "an hour" and that nothing "untoward" occurred while he was there. He clarified that he left "with all of my children" and everyone else who'd accompanied him, including their nannies.
Notably, one of those nannies is the subject of another email sent to Epstein from his accountant, Richard Kahn, in 2013. In the email, Kahn tells Epstein: "Attached is a resume of Lutnick's nanny. I am trying to arrange a time... for you to meet her."
During the hearing, Lutnick said he was surprised to learn that the nanny appeared in the email and that, as far as he knows, she never met Epstein.
Van Hollen said that there was reason to believe Lutnick "misled the country and the Congress" when he suggested that he'd cut off all contact with Epstein.
Speaking of Lutnick's meeting at the island, Van Hollen said: "You realize that this visit took place after he'd been convicted. You made a very big point of saying you sensed this was a bad person in 2005, and then, of course, in 2008 he was convicted of soliciting prostitution of a minor. And yet, you went and had this trip and had other interactions."
Van Hollen said that even if Lutnick himself was not accused of wrongdoing with Epstein, the fact that he misled the public is worthy of shame.
“That does call into question your fitness for the job you now hold, and the question of your credibility before this committee and the Congress,” the senator said.
Van Hollen also asked about another gathering mentioned in the emails, which supposedly happened in 2011 and included Lutnick and other prominent figures, such as the filmmaker Woody Allen and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn. (Previn is the adopted daughter of Allen's ex, Mia Farrow. Another adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, accused Allen of sexual assault, which he denied.)
After initially denying that the dinner took place, Lutnick said he didn't know what Van Hollen was referring to, then said there was a document in the tranche of files suggesting he'd met with Epstein again for only an hour and that they did not have dinner.
"I looked through the millions of documents for my name just like everybody else," Lutnick said.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) later appeared astonished by that statement.
“No," he said, "everyone isn’t worried about their names being in the Epstein files."
Following the hearing, calls for Lutnick to step down have only grown louder.
"Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump’s secretary of commerce, lied about his connection to Epstein, helped source a 'nanny' for Epstein, [and] visited rape island AFTER Epstein pled guilty to sex crimes," wrote Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)
McGovern also mentioned a $50,000 donation Epstein made in 2017 to a dinner keepingLutnick and another investor, which was put on by the Jewish philanthropic organization UJA-Federation of New York. Emails show that Epstein was offered 10 seats to attend the event but declined, saying Lutnick could fill them.
"This has gone on long enough," McGovern said. "Lutnick is a liar, and he needs to resign."
"Never in modern US history has the office intersected so broadly and deeply with the financial interests of the commerce secretary’s own family," according to the New York Times.
A group of Democratic lawmakers has called for the Commerce Department to investigate whether its billionaire secretary, Howard Lutnick, is improperly boosting artificial intelligence data centers that "stand to enrich his entire family."
The group of 25 House and Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), sent a letter on Thursday urging the department's acting inspector general, Duane Townsend, to review whether Lutnick violated any part of the ethics agreement he signed following his nomination.
That agreement required him to divest his stake in the financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which he had owned and led for decades. Cantor owns the Newmark Group, a real estate broker that facilitates leases for AI data centers.
Lutnick stepped down from his position as CEO in February, handing his financial stake in the company to his adult sons, Brandon and Kyle.
Though the transfer of his stake was supposed to happen in May, records show he did not do so until October, after receiving an ethics waiver from the Trump administration that allowed him to continue working on matters that could affect the company.
The lawmakers described some of these potential conflicts in the letter, many of which were revealed by a New York Times investigation last month:
Multiple press reports indicate that, in his capacity as head of the Commerce Department, Secretary Lutnick has helped boost AI data centers in ways that will likely enrich his own family. He has made public appearances promoting data center projects—including at least one that his family's company has worked on.
Furthermore, Secretary Lutnick has reportedly pressured foreign governments to invest in the US data center industry. For example, as part of a recent AI chips export deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Secretary Lutnick reportedly pushed the UAE to "build data centers in America,” in exchange for the United States loosening export control restrictions on certain advanced chips. The Trump administration ultimately approved this deal, under which the Lutnick-backed Newmark Group is primed to profit from that Emirati investment.
Similarly, as part of another trade deal, Secretary Lutnick reportedly pushed South Korea to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States. One startup vying for some of South Korea's investment has paid the Lutnick family's companies millions in fees to help it secure financing and land for its new data center.
Though businesspeople have often occupied the role of Commerce Secretary, the Times reported last month that "never in modern US history has the office intersected so broadly and deeply with the financial interests of the commerce secretary’s own family, according to interviews with ethics lawyers and historians."
According to the company's most recent quarterly earnings report, Newmark has completed more than $25 billion in data center deals over the past 12 months, resulting in its most lucrative year in the firm's history.
Citing evidence that the construction of AI data centers considerably spikes energy costs for consumers, the lawmakers said, "There is substantial public interest in ensuring that Secretary Lutnick is not violating federal ethics law to propel data centers that will be profitable for his family while making life more expensive for working Americans."
“Trump’s claims about inflation are false, and you can go to the grocery store and see it yourself,” said one economist.
A new poll shows US voters' approval of President Donald Trump's handling of the economy has hit an all-time low, even as the president and his officials insist the economy is the best in the world.
The latest Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Thursday found that only 31% of voters approve of Trump's handling of the economy, the lowest figure in that survey throughout either of his two terms in office. Overall, 68% of voters said that the current state of the economy was "poor."
What's more, Trump's approval rating on the economy among Republican voters now stands at just 69%, a strikingly low figure for a president who has consistently commanded loyalty from the GOP base.
Despite the grim numbers, the president and his administration have continued to say that the US is now in the middle of an economic boom.
During a Thursday morning interview on CNBC, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that the US now has "the greatest $30 trillion economy in the world."
"We are doing great," Lutnick said. "Nothing bad is happening. Greatness is happening. We grew at 4% GDP! Come on!"
Lutnick: "Jay Powell is too afraid to lead the greatest $30t economy in the world. We should be leading with our front foot. Instead we are always leaning back as if something bad is happening. We are doing great. Nothing bad is happening. Greatness is happening. We're growing 4%… pic.twitter.com/uWqrlwpllE
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2025
Lutnick's message echoes the one Trump delivered earlier this week during a rally in Pennsylvania, where he said that voters' concerns about being able to afford basics such as groceries, electricity, and healthcare were a "hoax" concocted by Democrats.
"Prices are coming down very substantially," Trump falsely claimed during his speech. "But they have a new word. You know, they always have a hoax. The new word is affordability."
Trump on the US economy: “I said it the other day. And a lot of people misinterpreted it. They said ‘Oh he doesn’t realize prices are high.’ Prices are coming down very substantially. But they have a new word. You know, they always have a hoax. The new word is affordability.” pic.twitter.com/JkErFnkT1D
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) December 10, 2025
As NPR reported on Thursday, data shows that the prices of groceries and electricity have continued to rise throughout Trump's second term, directly contradicting his claims that prices are "coming down."
University of Michigan economist Betsey Stevenson told NPR that Trump is playing with fire by making false claims about prices when US consumers can see costs persistently going up.
"Trump's claims about inflation are false, and you can go to the grocery store and see it yourself," Stevenson said.
Even some members of Trump's own party are growing wary of him insisting that America is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom when voters feel otherwise.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told The Hill that Trump's insistence on making happy talk about the economy would not fly with voters.
"You can’t call it a hoax and suggest that people are going to believe it," she said. "What you say matters."
An anonymous Republican senator also told The Hill that they were concerned about the optics of Trump building a massive luxury ballroom in the White House at a time when Americans say they are struggling financially.
"The cost of living just makes life very difficult on people," the senator stressed.
And Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) gently pushed back on Trump's messaging by telling CNN that "a lot of people are still having trouble making ends meet" in her state.
"We’re collecting all data we can to assess the economy’s health in this time when the gold standard data are under attack,” said the Economic Policy Institute's senior economist.
Amid President Donald Trump's efforts to conceal the harmful consequences of his economic policies by hiding key data and replacing economists who tell harsh truths with partisan yes-people, a leading US think tank on Monday announced a new digital dashboard "to provide an accountability check" against attempts to manipulate and mislead the public.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) says its new data accountability dashboard "serves as a one-stop shop" for economic data as federal statistic agencies (FSAs), once the "gold standard" for information, "face historically unprecedented threats from the Trump administration to their capacity and even their independence."
"This raises the specter of a future where FSA data cannot be relied upon to honestly report whether the US economy is experiencing dysfunction," EPI said.
In a bid to circumvent this, the EPI dashboard "displays a range of data not collected or disseminated by FSAs to shed some light on the economy during the pause in government data collection during the shutdown and—even more importantly—to provide an accountability check against efforts to manipulate FSA data in the future."
The federal statistical agencies (FSAs) that produce the gold standard economic data employers/investors/job seekers/workers/policymakers rely on to assess the health of the U.S. economy face unprecedented threats.We've pulled next-best data from non-FSA sources to help keep an eye on things. 1/
[image or embed]
— Economic Policy Institute (@epi.org) November 18, 2025 at 7:19 AM
As EPI senior economist Elise Gould explained in a statement: “The data collected by the federal statistical agencies are an incredibly valuable public good. While there would never be a good time to squander it, the absolute worst time to degrade data quality is when the economy is facing policy shocks that threaten to cause either a recession or an uptick of inflation."
"Given this urgency, we’re collecting all data we can to assess the economy’s health in this time when the gold standard data are under attack,” she added.
Trump's attempts to hide unfavorable economic data date back to his first administration, when he blocked or delayed economic analyses on the projected impacts of his tariffs. For example, half a dozen economists at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) quit en masse in April 2019, claiming they suffered retaliation for publishing reports that shed negative light on the president's trade and taxation policies.
In a related move that year, the USDA abruptly relocated its Economic Research Service main office from Washington, DC to Kansas City, Missouri, prompting another wave of resignations. ERS publications—including reports on farm income, rural economies, and trade impacts—dropped sharply, with key analyses delayed or blocked. Critics, including former agency officials, argued that the move to Kansas City was intended to conceal negative impacts of Trump's trade policies from the public.
During Trump's second administration, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick disbanded the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC), a key body that worked under the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis to ensure that the federal government produces accurate data on economic indicators.
Trump also gutted the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Technical Advisory Committee, which had advised the Department of Labor about how economic changes can impact data collection. In August, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, baselessly accusing her of manipulating economic data to harm him politically by publishing a jobs report showing weak employment growth.
Two weeks later, the president nominated EJ Antoni, a senior economist at the Heritage Foundation described as a "partisan bomb thrower" who helped write Project 2025, a blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government, to replace McEntarfer. Antoni stunned critics with suggestions including eliminating federal monthly jobs reports, and with his overall lack of data management experience. His nomination was later withdrawn amid mounting controversy.
Additionally, the Trump administration has summarily fired dozens of independent agency leaders, required every federal agency to have a White House liaison, and required ostensibly independent agencies to submit draft regulations to the Office of Management and Budget—headed by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought—for review before publication.
As Common Dreams reported, an analysis published in September by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities detailed how the Trump administration's politicization of data, combined with funding cuts, is making it more difficult for experts to determine how the president's policies are impacting US households.
From ending tracking of the impacts of climate-driven extreme weather, to removing a study from the Department of Justice website that showed violent attacks by far-right extremists outpaced those committed by the left, to removing questions about gender identity from key crime surveys, the Trump administration's attacks on information transcend economic data.
"The assault on data, research, and facts is fundamental to Trump and his authoritarian regime," Liza Featherstone, a contributing editor at The New Republic, recently wrote. "He seems to understand that data provides the basis for arguments, and he does not want any arguments. He also understands that facts and knowledge can only be nourished and sustained by institutions and experts, so he is destroying those institutions and pink-slipping those experts."
"We must appreciate their importance and their stakes as well as he does, and remain as committed to the institutions, the data, the facts, and the experts as Trump is to their eradication," Featherstone added. "He has brought sincere zeal to their destruction, and we must bring an even greater passion to their restoration and renaissance. We will need it, as ours is the harder job."
"The billions of dollars of donations these oligarchic clans give candidates, parties, and particularly outside spending groups drown out the voices and concerns of ordinary voters," according to the report.
The ever-growing amount of billionaire cash in elections is poisoning U.S. democracy, according to a report published Wednesday by the advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness—which found that the top 100 billionaire families spent an eye-popping $2.6 billion on federal contests in 2024.
That's more than twice the roughly $1 billion spent by individual billionaire donors in 2020, according to the group, and constitutes 160 times the amount of billionaire political spending since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision paved the way for the proliferation of super political action committees (PACs), a type of committee that can accept unlimited donations to spend on political activity.
Picking apart that $2.6 billion, there's a clear partisan skew: 70% of that billionaire money went to entities supporting Republican candidates, while 23% went to entities backing Democratic candidates. The other 7% went toward independent candidates—such as presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now a Cabinet secretary—and committees that gave to candidates from both parties who champion specific issues, such as cryptocurrency.
That skew is particularly pronounced when it comes to the competitive Senate races that determined control of the chamber in 2024.
Looking at Senate contests in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the authors of the report found that nearly 80% of the total billionaire cash in these races—which tallied $1.14 billion in outside spending—went to outside groups supporting Republican candidates, compared to 20% used to support Democratic hopefuls.
"The billions of dollars of donations these oligarchic clans give candidates, parties, and particularly outside spending groups drown out the voices and concerns of ordinary voters, endangering democracy and distorting public policy," the report states.
What's more, "this undue influence by the billionaire donor class over our government—always a concern and already present in mostly indirect ways—has found its full, frightening expression in the second Trump administration with the ascendancy of Elon Musk, the world's richest man and the biggest billionaire donor in the 2024 elections," the authors wrote.
Musk's ability to convert his extreme wealth into political influence in the Trump administration contrasts with reports that Musk pays relatively little in taxes. In 2018, for example, Musk paid nothing in federal income taxes even as his wealth soared, largely due to Tesla stock appreciation.
But Musk is just the "most notorious example of billionaires literally buying power," according to the group. ATF highlighted that billionaire Linda McMahon secured a position as President Donald Trump's education secretary after she and her ex-husband gave tens of millions to support Republican candidates, as did billionaire businessman Howard Lutnick, now the commerce secretary.
The report, titled Billionaires Buying Elections: They've Come to Collect, is the latest in ATF's "billionaires buying elections" series, and according to the group it is the most comprehensive because it covers both direct billionaire giving and "traces the indirect routes billionaire cash can take through campaign committees contributing to each other."
In its methodology section, the report gives the example of WinSenate—a super PAC that works to elect Democrats to the Senate—which did not report billionaire contributions, but received all of its funding from the Senate Majority PAC. Because the Senate Majority PAC got 19.9% of its funding from billionaires, the report counted WinSenate's share of billionaire spending at 19.9%.
According to the report, other big-name Republican megadonors in the 2024 cycle included shipping supply magnates Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein and Israeli-American billionaire Miriam Adelson.
According to the authors of the report, billionaires need to be taxed more.
"Tax policy—which has the most direct impact on billionaire wealth—is perhaps the most obviously affected by the money-for-power billionaire bargain," according to the group, which cites the current Republican push to extend parts of Trump's 2017 tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy as part of a general trend in tax policy over the past four decades to decrease taxes on the wealthiest people and most profitable businesses.
"The self-reinforcing combination of booming billionaire fortunes and weakening campaign finance laws continues to threaten our democratic form of government," according to the report. "As the outcome of the last presidential campaign amply demonstrates, until billionaires pay their fair share of taxes and we put effective curbs on their political spending, this threat will only grow."
The report calls for solutions like bolstering the estate tax and implementing a wealth tax, such as the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, a bill that was reintroduced by multiple Democratic senators in 2024. The newer version of the legislation would place a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion, and impose an 1% annual surtax—so 3% tax overall—on the net worth of families and trusts that is above $1 billion.
One group noted who would actually complain: "Someone who depends on Social Security to buy groceries. Someone who depends on Social Security to pay rent. Someone who depends on Social Security to survive."
As U.S. President Donald Trump's temporary leader of the Social Security Administration threatened to shut down the agency over an unfavorable court ruling on Friday, the billionaire commerce secretary came under fire for suggesting that only "fraudsters" will complain if they don't get their earned benefits.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared on All-In—a podcast hosted by "four billionaire besties"—on Thursday. A brief clip of his interview, which lasted an hour and 45 minutes, made the rounds on social media Friday.
Lutnick told two of the hosts that if the SSA didn't send out checks this month, his 94-year-old mother-in-law "wouldn't call and complain," but "a fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling, and complaining."
Critics were quick to point out Lutnick's wealth. As More Perfect Union posted, "His net worth is estimated at $2 billion."
Richard Phillips, pensions and tax policy director for U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.),
called the commerce secretary's comments "shameful."
"Nearly 40% of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income and nearly 1 in 7 rely on it for more than 90% of their income," according to Phillips. "These people would call due to missing checks because their very survival depends on it."
The watchdog group Public Citizen similarly pushed back on social media, saying: "You know who actually makes the loudest noise? Someone who depends on Social Security to buy groceries. Someone who depends on Social Security to pay rent. Someone who depends on Social Security to survive. But billionaires like Howard Lutnick don't care about those people."
Groundwork Collaborative chief of policy and advocacy Alex Jacquez said in a statement that "the Trump administration just told seniors that they should shut up and sit down if they don't receive their Social Security checks on time. The real 'fraudsters' are Trump's out-of-touch billionaire donors and advisers denying seniors their hard-earned benefits to pay for their next tax giveaway."
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a union for federal workers, also tied Lutnick's remarks to Republican tax ambitions—as well as a broader attack on the federal bureaucracy by Trump and the de facto leader of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), billionaire Elon Musk.
"First, Elon called Social Security a 'Ponzi scheme' and said we need to eliminate it," Kelley said. "Then DOGE started trying to cut SSA staff. Now Lutnick says 'don't complain' when the payments stop. They are taking money from working-class people in order to give it to their rich friends."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Friday, acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Leland Dudek is threatening to shut down the agency in response to a federal judge's Thursday order blocking DOGE's SSA "data grab." The Washington Post later revealed that the official "is consulting with agency lawyers and the Justice Department" about the possible shutdown.
Some political observers see the Republican administration's attacks on the SSA—and the rest of the federal government—as a major opportunity for the Democratic Party, which has minorities in both chambers of Congress.
"If Dems have any strategic mojo left, they will clip this and play it on a nonstop television ad loop in the two Florida districts holding special congressional elections," Helaine Olen of the American Economic Liberties Project said about the Lutnick interview. "Seniors will rightly whine when their checks don't show up."
Already, some seniors have publicly shared stories of benefits incorrectly shut off since Trump took office, and some congressional Democrats are taking aim at his administration. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a longtime SSA defender who has framed the DOGE assault as a push toward privatization, posted the commerce secretary's video on social media.
"Trump and Musk's cuts to the Social Security Administration could lead to the delay, denial, and disruption of your EARNED BENEFITS," Larson said Friday. "For 40% of our seniors, Social Security is the only income they have. They can't just wait for their next check."
Also responding to the clip, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said, "They are getting ready to destroy Social Security. Because the billionaires don't need it. Prepping the ground here by shaming people who dare complain if their Social Security check disappears."
The Social Security comments aren't the only reason the commerce secretary is facing intense criticism this week. On Wednesday, he told viewers of Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime" to buy stock in Musk's electric vehicle maker, Tesla. One watchdog leader noted that Lutnick "conveniently forgot to mention his family business empire holds nearly $840 million in the company."
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center on Friday filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics and an ethics official at the U.S. Department of Commerce, urging them to investigate Lutnick's comments about Tesla stock—which has been crashing due to protests of the company resulting from Musk's work for the Trump administration.