SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ted cruz
‘These Guys Can’t Help Themselves’: Cruz Pushes $200 Billion Capital Gains Tax Cut Without OK From Congress
Republican senators said they were seeking to end an "unfair inflation tax on everyday Americans." But nearly all the benefits of their proposal would go to the wealthiest 1%.
Mar 03, 2026
Two leading Republicans are pushing for the Trump administration to issue another $200 billion tax cut, primarily to the wealthiest Americans, without congressional approval.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tim Scott (R-SC) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging him to use executive authority to lower the federal tax on capital gains—the profits from selling stocks, bonds, real estate, and other investments.
The senators have proposed that capital gains taxes should be “indexed for inflation." As the Post explained:
The plan pushed by Cruz and Scott has been sought by conservatives for many years. Under current law, an investor who bought $100 worth of stock in 1990 and sold it today for $300 would currently owe capital gains taxes on the full $200 in profit. But the $100 investment in 1990 would be worth roughly $230 in today’s dollars after accounting for inflation. Under the Cruz-Scott proposal, the investor would only owe taxes on that $70, rather than the full $200.
The senators called on Bessent to "eliminate" this "unfair inflation tax on everyday Americans."
According to Federal Reserve data from 2025, the richest 1% of Americans owned about half of all stocks, while the poorest 50% owned only 1%.
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which enacted massive cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) last summer, is already estimated to funnel more than $1 trillion to the top 1% of earners over the next 10 years, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
It is unclear whether Bessent would even have the power to change how gains are taxed without an act of Congress, or if Bessent has any interest in doing so. But the vast majority of the benefits from Cruz and Scott's proposal, if enacted, would likely go to the rich as well.
When the Trump administration first considered indexing capital gains taxes to inflation back in 2018, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that 63% of the benefits would flow to the richest 0.1%—those making tens of millions per year—while 86% would go to the top 1%.
Those in the bottom 90% of earners would see just over 2% of the overall benefits, with those in the bottom half receiving basically nothing.
According to the Post, the senators view lowering capital gains taxes as part of a GOP bid to "improve its economic approval rating with voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections," in which the party is expected to take a walloping, according to current polls.
Voters have not responded kindly to previous bills that handed lavish tax breaks to the rich. At the time of its passage, the OBBBA was one of the least popular pieces of legislation in modern history, with several polls showing nearly a 2-to-1 disapproval rating.
But Cruz and Scott are pushing for this policy change despite the public revulsion and the fact that the Department of Justice has previously ruled that the Treasury Department can't make policy without Congress' approval.
"Ted Cruz is asking the Treasury Department to break the law to give another round of tax breaks to the ultrarich," remarked Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. "These guys can't help themselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ted Cruz Says His Bill Will Allow DOJ to 'Prosecute' Those Who Fund No Kings Protests, Which Have Been Overwhelmingly Peaceful
"They want to ban protests," warned journalist Mehdi Hasan. "They want to kill the First Amendment."
Oct 16, 2025
Doubling down on efforts by Republicans to smear the peaceful “No Kings” protest movement as “terrorism,” Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday called for the passage of legislation he introduced earlier this year to “prosecute” those funding the protests.
This weekend, organizers expect millions to gather in over 2,500 locations around the country in protest against President Donald Trump, including at the National Mall in Washington, DC.
In a Fox News interview on Wednesday, Cruz (R-Texas) claimed that the rallies were funded by the billionaire liberal donor George Soros, whom the Trump administration has indicated it plans to target using the criminal division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
“You look at this No Kings rally and there’s considerable evidence that George Soros and his network is behind funding these rallies, which may well be riots all across the country,” Cruz said. “So I’ve introduced legislation called the Stop FUNDERs Act that would add rioting to the list of predicate offenses for RICO.”
Cruz said that the legislation would allow the Department of Justice to “prosecute the money that is funding the antisemitic protests on campuses,” (referring to pro-Palestine protests), “the pro-open border protests in [Los Angeles] and other cities (protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and these ‘No King’ protests.”
RICO refers to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which has historically been used to prosecute organized crime leaders for violence carried out by members of their organizations.
In the wake of the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller suggested that RICO should be used as part of an effort to “dismantle” left-wing nonprofits, which he claimed have incited violence and terrorism through First Amendment-protected speech criticizing Kirk’s views.
Subsequent reporting from Reuters last week confirmed that the Trump administration was waging a “crackdown on the finances and activities of liberal nonprofits and groups opposed to his agenda,” describing it as “a multi-agency effort with top White House aide Stephen Miller playing a central role.”
Several Republicans, including Trump, have accused liberal nonprofits of funding “domestic terror networks” throughout the country, though they’ve presented little evidence for the assertion.
Soros’ group, the Open Society Foundations, has pushed back on the administration’s claims with a spokesperson stating: “Neither George Soros nor the Open Society Foundations fund protests, condone violence, or foment it in any way. Claims to the contrary are false.”
While Cruz stated that his Stop FUNDERs Act, introduced in July, would protect “freedom of speech and peaceful protest,” the acronym “FUNDERs” is short for “Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots,” which implies that even nonviolent protests deemed objectionable by the DOJ could be targeted.
There have already been several No Kings rallies around the country since Trump took office in January. The largest one, which took place on June 14, is estimated by the Crowd Counting Consortium to have had anywhere from 2 million to 4.8 million participants, making it the second-largest single day of nonviolent protest in the Trump era, second only to the nationwide Women’s Marches and other demonstrations following Trump’s first inauguration in 2017.
The group’s analysis, published in August, examined thousands of events across the country and found that 99.5% of the reported protests had no injuries or property damage. Of the 10 documented events that did involve violence or property damage, it was often directed against the protesters. At one demonstration in Salt Lake City, an armed “safety volunteer” shot and killed a peaceful demonstrator and wounded another. In several other cases, police and opponents of the protests have brandished weapons at the demonstrators.
Their report also noted that “the No Kings coalition has hosted several online trainings... that have attracted hundreds of thousands of views. The July 16 virtual training was probably the largest nonviolence training in US history, with over 130,000 registered.”
As author Mike Rothschild noted on X, “previous No Kings protests have been so peaceful and anodyne that I’ve seen far-left folks complaining they aren’t accomplishing anything. There’s no conspiracy here, no Soros-paid agitators, just people walking and holding funny signs. You can’t make something out of nothing.”
Despite this, in the days leading up to this weekend’s No Kings protests, Republican leaders have attempted to portray it as a violent movement. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) described it as a “hate America rally” that would include “Antifa,” a group that the Trump administration has designated as a “domestic terrorist” organization and threatened with lethal military force. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said this weekend’s marches were being run by the “terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said that “we’ll have to get the National Guard out” to combat the demonstration, adding: “Hopefully it will be peaceful. I doubt it.”
Responding to Cruz’s pledge to prosecute the funders of No Kings, Mehdi Hasan, founder of the media outlet Zeteo, warned: “They want to ban protests. It’s insane and should scare every American. They want to kill the First Amendment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stephen Miller Claims Simply Calling Trump Authoritarian 'Incites Violence and Terrorism'
"Trying to criminalize the act of calling a government 'authoritarian,'" one journalist said, "is exactly what an authoritarian government would do."
Sep 25, 2025
Stephen Miller, the White House's deputy chief of staff, signaled how far he is willing to go to criminalize dissent against President Donald Trump in a social media post on Wednesday in which he implied that merely describing the president's actions as "authoritarian" is tantamount to a criminal offense.
Miller's comments came in response to a clip of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who appeared Tuesday on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" on CBS. In the clip, posted to X, the governor is shown describing Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) mass immigration roundups.
"Masked men jumping out of unmarked cars, people disappearing, no due process, no oversight, zero accountability—that's what's happening in the United States today," Newsom said. “People ask, ‘Is 'authoritarianism' being hyperbolic?’ Bullshit we’re being hyperbolic.”
Newsom noted that he had just signed the first bill in the nation forbidding ICE agents from wearing masks while carrying out arrests and requiring them to provide identification.
"I mean, if some guy jumped out of an unmarked car in a van and tried to grab me, by definition, you're going to push back," Newsom continued. "These are not just authoritarian tendencies; these are authoritarian actions by an authoritarian government."
Newsom directly called out comments made by Miller, who recently said on Fox News that the Trump administration should use law enforcement to "dismantle" the left following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
“This should put chills up spines, “Newsom said. “[Miller] called the Democratic Party an ‘extremist organization,’ basically a terrorist organization, saying he’s going after his enemies."
Newsom also referred to a post made by Trump on Truth Social telling Attorney General Pam Bondi to target certain political enemies for prosecution.
Miller responded to the clip of Newsom, saying: "This language incites violence and terrorism."
As many critics pointed out, none of Newsom's statements in the clip promoted or encouraged violence. They were simply criticisms of the Trump administration’s actions, which have included rounding up immigrants without due process and singling out political opponents for persecution.
US law has historically set an extraordinarily high bar for what speech constitutes "incitement" to violence.
As Lee Rowland of the New York Civil Liberties Union explained, "The Supreme Court recognizes, rightfully, that political speech often involves really passionate, sometimes violent rhetoric. And unless and until it creates a specific and immediate roadmap to violence against others, it cannot be criminalized consistent with our First Amendment."
But Miller's comments indicate a concerted effort within the Trump administration to widen what protected political speech can be deemed violent.
On the day of Kirk’s assassination, Trump blamed “those on the radical left” for the murder, saying they “have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. He added that “This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”
Earlier this week, Trump signed an executive order designating “antifa,” short for antifascist, as a “domestic terrorist organization"—although it is not, in fact, an organization at all. Without a concrete group to target, critics have warned that the designation will instead be used to label those who describe Trump as “fascist” or “authoritarian” as threats in and of themselves.
Bondi suggested last week, in comments that were met with derision across the political spectrum, that the administration would use law enforcement to go after "hate speech," which is generally protected by the First Amendment.
But the characterization of criticism being equal to violence only amplified following Wednesday's shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas, which killed one detainee and critically injured two others. JD Vance made a similar suggestion that critical rhetoric toward ICE was to blame for the attack.
“When Democrats like Gavin Newsom ... say that these people [ICE] are part of an authoritarian government, when the left-wing media lies about what they’re doing, when they lie about who they’re arresting, when they lie about the actual job of law enforcement... What they’re doing is encouraging crazy people to go and commit violence," said Vance.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), likewise, blamed the shooting on "every politician who is using rhetoric demonizing ICE and demonizing [Customs and Border Protection]."
Miller's comments, which directly refer to criticism of the Trump administration as "inciting violence and terrorism," may be the most direct indication yet of an intent to criminalize First Amendment-protected dissent.
Ironically, these threats have only made criticisms of Trump as an authoritarian grow louder.
“Trying to criminalize the act of calling a government ‘authoritarian,‘” said journalist James Surowiecki, “is exactly what an authoritarian government would do.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular