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
tom steyer
The Uncomfortable Progressive Case for Tom Steyer
Despite being a billionaire himself, Steyer appears to be the only major candidate in California's governor race openly escalating conflict with the monopolies, corporate interests, and institutional failures driving the state's affordability crisis.
Jun 02, 2026
California voters are clearly hungry for change. The real question now is whether Democrats are willing to confront the corporate interests and entrenched systems standing in the way of it.
That is one reason a growing number of progressives, labor organizers, climate activists, and anti-corporate advocates are rallying behind Tom Steyer despite longstanding discomfort with billionaire politics.
At first glance, that coalition can feel contradictory. Progressives have spent years warning, correctly, about the dangers of concentrated wealth and billionaire influence in American politics. Many still believe that billionaires should not exist in a healthy democracy.
So why are so many anti-corporate organizers increasingly rallying behind one now?
The question is not whether candidates are perfect vessels for progressive ideals. The question is whether they are willing to pick the right fights.
Because politics is ultimately about conflict. It is about who is willing to challenge concentrated power, which interests candidates are willing to confront, and whether they are prepared to pursue structural change instead of simply managing decline.
The question is not whether someone benefited from broken systems. The question is whether they are willing to confront the systems that produced their own power in the first place.
And increasingly, Tom Steyer appears to be the only major candidate in California's governor race openly escalating conflict with the monopolies, corporate interests, and institutional failures driving the state's affordability crisis.
That matters because California is not entering a traditional election environment.
Recent polling suggests Xavier Becerra is increasingly likely to secure one of the two spots in California's top-two primary. Whether voters like it or not, that reality changes the strategic conversation.
At a moment when voters are demanding structural change, Becerra increasingly represents continuity politics. He has struggled to articulate a meaningful critique of the status quo or explain what he would fundamentally do differently than Gavin Newsom.
The question facing many progressive voters is no longer simply which candidate they prefer. It is whether a candidate willing to challenge concentrated power, monopoly interests, and entrenched systems will make it into the general election at all.
That matters because Steve Hilton is running aggressively as an anti-establishment change candidate. If Democrats allow this race to become a contest between a candidate associated with continuity and a Republican claiming the mantle of disruption, they risk ceding the language of change to the right.
You cannot defeat a change candidate with a status quo candidate.
You need a competing change agent.
Steyer is increasingly positioning himself as one.
What makes this politically significant is not simply that he uses progressive rhetoric. Plenty of candidates do that. What matters is that he is embracing policies that directly confront concentrated wealth and monopoly power, including support for single-payer healthcare, a billionaire tax, breaking up utility monopolies, lowering energy costs, expanding public education, and building affordable housing at scale.
Those are not symbolic positions. They are direct challenges to entrenched systems of political and economic power.
And increasingly, many progressives believe the clearest indicator of that conflict is not who Steyer is. It is who is lining up against him.
When utility monopolies, fossil fuel interests, anti-tax billionaires, and major corporations begin mobilizing against the same candidate, voters should pay attention.
That does not mean progressives suddenly agree with everything about Tom Steyer or billionaire politics generally. It means many recognize that political alignment matters more than biography alone.
The question is not whether candidates are perfect vessels for progressive ideals. The question is whether they are willing to pick the right fights.
For many progressives, supporting Steyer is not about abandoning skepticism toward wealth or power. It is about recognizing that in moments of deep public frustration, the most important political question becomes who is actually willing to confront the forces making life increasingly unaffordable, unstable, and unequal.
That is the uncomfortable reality reshaping this race.
The question facing California voters is no longer whether the state needs change.
It is whether a candidate willing to fight for that change will still be standing when the general election begins.
Keep ReadingShow Less
California’s Choice: The Progressive Path or Centrist Stagnation
Today June 2, 2026, in California, voters have an opportunity to alter American history by electing progressives up and down the ballot.
Jun 02, 2026
Within national mythology, California is understood to be a progressive haven—with a ruling Democratic Party passing strong regulations, ever-higher taxes on the wealthy, and supporting unions to its heart’s desire.
Unfortunately, this is far from accurate. The Democratic Party may dominate California politics, but the wealthiest state in the union no longer leads the way with innovative laws and regulations, let alone serving the interests of working people, the poor, and the middle class.
Yes, California still has a progressive income tax, the nation’s highest gas taxes, relatively strong environmental regulations, and the world’s greatest public university system—but these are legacies of bygone eras. The story of the last 20 years of single-party Democratic rule is far less inspiring (unless you’re a Silicon Valley oligarch).
Now, as progressives are making significant gains across the country, revitalizing the Democratic Party in the process, the California party remains dominated by a caste of perennial incumbents committed to neoliberal centrism that, at best, generates incremental change.
Rest assured that progressives on the ballot are part of a national movement that understands that the Democratic Party has bifurcated into a vibrant progressive wing and an increasingly sclerotic moderate establishment.
Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. Once Democrats started winning supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature, corporations and big money interests stopped wasting their time courting Republicans. They focused their lobbying on Democrats, and to great effect. California’s Democratic Party, and its leading figures, are more beholden to big business and wealthy donors than almost any state Democratic Party. This, in turn, means Democratic incumbents accrue huge campaign war chests for their re-election.
The result is a more conservative party, one that is out of sync with the electorate. Want evidence? Ask yourself how many members of the Squad have come from California? The answer, of course, is zero. Yet all public opinion polling shows that the California electorate is decisively more progressive than the national average.
It’s true that Reps. Ro Khanna and Lateefah Simon are Squad adjacent, and a few others are solid progressives—but given that California represents about 20% of the Democratic Caucus in the US House, the state’s delegation is on balance middle-of-the-road.
This disconnect—between the political beliefs of Californians and the policies supported by their elected representatives at the national, state, and even local levels—is a major barrier to the necessary transformation of the Democratic Party into a force able to vanquish the fascist-authoritarian GOP before it consolidates power and brings down the curtain on American democracy.
Simply put, the American public increasingly understands that the status quo ante of neoliberal policy, which has organized the country’s economy since the 1980s, produces one result: ever-increasing wealth inequality. The Democratic Party must break from the economics of the Clinton and Obama administrations. The Democratic base and the general public want policies that boost the lives of working Americans, just as they want a sane foreign policy and an honest democracy. They want progressive policies.
Today June 2, 2026, in California, voters have an opportunity to alter American history by electing progressives up and down the ballot. This will transform the largest state Democratic Party, bringing it back in sync with the sentiment of the state’s population so that it can lead in the development of a new 21st century social justice compact.
There are many progressive champions with a real chance of victory today—and in the general election runoff on November 3. To start, there is a clear choice at the top of the ticket: Tom Steyer for governor.
Steyer is one of three viable candidates, two of which will make the runoff. In the best circumstance, the two democrats, Steyer and Xaiver Beccera, will take first and second—a result that will translate into more Democratic victories across the state in November. However, MAGA-supporting Republican Steve Hilton still looks likely to disrupt that result. So, it’s essential to vote, and get everyone you know to vote for Steyer by 8:00 pm PT today.
Admittedly, it sticks in the throat to be supporting a billionaire, but the simple truth is that Steyer will pursue a transformative progressive policy agenda. In contrast, Xavier Beccera, who 20 years ago seemed a sincere progressive, long ago redefined himself as an establishment Democrat. Becerra is committed to maintaining Gov. Gavin Newsom’s policies that have left California stranded with the nation’s co-equal highest poverty rate, an affordability crisis that makes New York City residents blush, and a pronounced failure to lead on environmental and social policies in the manner the world expects of California.
Tom Steyer, by contrast, supports a billionaire’s tax, meaningful living wage legislation, aggressive incentives to re-boost green energy production (and film production too), and, most tellingly, a single-payer universal healthcare system for everyone in the state. A top-two finish by Steyer will guarantee a powerful debate about the direction of the state over the next five months
Beyond the governor’s race, in nearly every US house district, state assembly, and senate race, and significant city and local elections, there are strong progressive candidates challenging the dominant California Democratic Party mainstream—many of whom are poised to advance to the November runoff. Still, it’s worth noting that this has been a very confusing election season due to redistricting (and the chaos of the governor’s race), such that down-ballot candidates have had a difficult time attracting adequate attention. But rest assured that progressives on the ballot are part of a national movement that understands that the Democratic Party has bifurcated into a vibrant progressive wing and an increasingly sclerotic moderate establishment. Please do the necessary research to learn who the progressives are in your district.
So far, it’s been a very good year for progressives—let’s continue the momentum tomorrow in New Jersey, Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, South Carolina, and the largest state and soon-to-be truest bastion of progressive public policy, California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In California, Vote Against the Forces Destroying Democracy
Tom Steyer, despite being a billionaire himself, is dedicated to protecting our democracy from the forces that are working overtime to undermine it. The same cannot be said of the other candidates in the race.
May 26, 2026
Like the rest of the country, California is in a hugely consequential fight for the future. Will we protect our democracy and build a sustainable future where we can all afford to live well? Or will victory go to the forces that are undermining democracy to protect their ability to profit from destroying the planet? Will we elect a Governor who supports the forces tearing our country apart? Or will we elect one who is dedicated to protecting democracy and building a world that works for all of us? The stakes could not be higher.
As inequality grows at an unprecedented pace, life is becoming precarious for more and more people. The rich aren’t just getting richer, they are also becoming more powerful. And the fossil fuel and tech sectors are at the leading edge of those devastating changes to our society.
The fossil fuel industry is the single largest funder of right-wing extremism in this country. It supports ultra-right think tanks, including the Heritage foundation which gave us Project 2025. It is also the biggest spender in California politics. As the world moves away from dependence on its products, the industry is in a fight for survival. It is ready to take the whole world, and democracy itself, down to remain profitable. Those are the forces we need to challenge if we want to make our country work for those of us not in the 1%.
There are three pieces of evidence we can use to see which side of that great divide the candidates are on: What is their relationship to fossil fuel money? What is their position on the Billionaire’s Tax? And what is their position on AB 1790 Water’s Edge which would close a $4 billion a year tax loophole that was fought for by the fossil fuel industry in the 1980’s.
Clearly both of the Republicans front runners for the California governorship are ready to undermine democratic institutions to help serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry and tech oligarchs.
There is one Democratic front runner who passes all three tests with flying colors. It is painful that the one person who has spent the past decades aggressively supporting democracy, fighting for immigrant rights, fighting the tendency toward oligarchy in our politics, and challenging the fossil fuel industry is himself a billionaire. But the facts are that Tom Steyer will not veto the billionaire’s tax, has pledged to support closing the Water’s Edge Tax loophole, and has pledged to not take fossil fuel money.
The same cannot be said for the other Democratic contender, Xavier Becerra. Becerra has taken the largest legal contribution from Chevron and he publicly said “I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron.” He has publicly opposed the Billionaires Tax. He has not publicly declared his support for the Water’s Edge bill. The California Resources Corporation spent $500,000 supporting his campaign
Steyer is dedicated to protecting our democracy from the forces that are working overtime to undermine it. Becerra plans to continue us on the path of business as usual which is heading us for a train wreck with the future of democracy and of the climate. In spite of the fact that he is a billionaire, I am excited to support Tom Steyer for governor.
Keep ReadingShow Less
California's Tom Steyer Proposes Jobs Guarantee for Workers Displaced by AI
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said one veteran labor organizer.
May 08, 2026
In a first for a statewide candidate, California gubernatorial contender Tom Steyer on Friday proposed the creation of a wealth fund that would be paid into by artificial intelligence companies, with the money being used to fund jobs in key sectors of the economy.
The billionaire hedge fund founder-turned-environmental advocate, who has come out in support of a proposed tax on billioionaires' wealth and a single-payer healthcare system for the state and has described himself as a "class traitor," told Wired about his proposal to use a "token tax" to fund what he called the Golden State Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Big Tech companies would be taxed “a fraction of a cent for every unit of data processed” for AI uses, and some of the money directed to the fund through the taxation plan would be earmarked for jobs for people who lost employment due to the expansion of AI.
Jobs in healthcare, housing construction, and modernizing the state's energy infrastructure would be prioritized in the fund.
Steyer told Wired the plan would make California "the first major economy in the world" to guarantee jobs to people who have been displaced by AI.
“People all over this state are terrified that AI is going to hollow out this whole economy and they’re going to lose their jobs. Young people are worried they’ll never get a job,” Steyer told Wired. “We believe this can be an amazing transformational technology in many ways, but we’re not in the business of leaving people in California behind.”
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas released a report Thursday showing that for the second straight month, AI was the leading reason companies cited for laying off workers. AI-related job cuts accounted for 26% of the 88,387 layoffs the firm recorded, with 21,490 people losing their jobs due to AI.
“Technology companies continue to announce large-scale cuts and are leading all industries in layoff announcements. They are also often citing AI spend and innovation. Regardless of whether individual jobs are being replaced by AI, the money for those roles is,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray, and Christmas.
Last October, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released an analysis showing that AI and automation could eliminate nearly 100 million jobs in a decade—yet President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are aggressively pushing to stop states from regulating the industry.
Trump signed an executive order late last year calling on the Department of Justice to create an AI Litigation Task Force, which would target laws and proposals to require studies on the impact of AI on jobs, protect people from AI companion chatbots, and regulate the technology in other ways.
“Not regulating AI doesn’t seem remotely reasonable,” Steyer said Friday.
At a debate earlier this week, Steyer said AI cannot be allowed to "create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs."
"The number-one thing that we have to do is make sure AI is a tool for workers and not a replacement of workers," he said. "And we absolutely need to own part of it."
We can't let AI create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs. The people of California need to share in the wealth AI creates. pic.twitter.com/ts2Ru1J5IX
— Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) May 6, 2026
Charles Idelson, former communications director for National Nurses United, applauded Steyer for "addressing a growing danger for California's working class."
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said Idelson.
Steyer said in a memo that in addition to protecting Californians from job loss, the fund created by the token tax would "strengthen the foundation of the state’s economy, invest in our communities, and create beautiful, vibrant public spaces."
“To support these efforts," said the campaign, "Tom will also invest heavily in training and apprenticeship programs across the state.”
Steyer's plan for AI also includes an expansion of unemployment insurance and the creation of the AI Worker Protection Administration that would adopt new rules to protect workers' rights as AI continues to develop.
Devin Murphy, director for digital mobilization for Steyer's campaign, said the state faces a "defining question" after its tech industry helped build the AI economy: "Who benefits from it?"
"Tom Steyer is putting forward one of the first serious plans to ensure AI strengthens the middle class," said Murphy, "instead of hollowing it out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
I Detest Billionaires: My Journey to Supporting One for Governor of California
Make no mistake about it: Corporate lobbyists are horrified that Tom Steyer might become California’s governor. Despite myself, he may just be the class traitor we've been waiting for.
May 04, 2026
As a progressive who watches too much television, when I see a Democratic candidate dominating the TV air war with ubiquitous campaign ads, I usually know that’s a Democrat I should oppose—the one being lavishly funded by wealthy corporate interests. And the ads are usually vapid, empty.
Living in California these past months, I’ve had to adjust my normal mindset. Because the Democrat running for governor who was dominating the airwaves had put out one substantive ad after another—calling for taxing the wealthy, breaking up utility monopolies, standing up to Big Oil. Each ad could have been put out by Bernie Sanders. Like the ad featuring Rep. Ro Khanna about taking on the “big insurance companies” to pass universal “single-payer healthcare” for California.
Or the candidate’s video message denouncing AIPAC (“they’re attacking progressive Democrats every chance they get”) and the Democratic Party establishment for “not talking more forcefully” against the Iran war.
The candidate putting out all these wonderfully progressive ads is billionaire Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager turned environmental advocate, now self-funding his campaign to the tune of $130 million. So far.
Let me be clear: I generally loathe billionaires and hedge-funders and everyone in the financial speculation elite. I remain skeptical that someone as wealthy as Steyer who operated at the heights of amoral financialized capitalism can deeply understand and fight for working-class interests.
If Steyer is elected, will he prove to be the effective “class traitor” that most Californians need him to be—a governor who stands up to corporate greed and power?
So I was in a quandary. A month ago, after seeing Steyer’s anti-AIPAC video attacking Democratic leaders for failing to “forcefully” oppose Trump’s war, I started an intense dialogue with progressives across California, including journalists, experienced activists, organizational leaders. Almost all—somewhat surprisingly or confusedly or embarrassingly—were arriving at the same conclusion: the billionaire, Tom Steyer, is the best choice for governor.
Many had attended and been impressed by one of Steyer’s town hall forums across the state, where his introductory remarks were short while the audience Q&A went long. I started finding online memes from an activist I respect, Amar Shergill, a Steyer-supporter who formerly chaired the California Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus—including his charts comparing the Democratic field.
Like in other Democratic one-party states, pro-corporate corruption in California’s state capital is rampant, which is why California—with a population almost as large as Canada’s—lacks universal healthcare coverage. Most Democrats in office say they support it, but profiteering insurance interests fund their campaigns. A bill to move California toward government-provided single-payer health insurance that would replace private insurance sailed through the Democrat-led state legislature in both 2006 and 2008, when it was well-known that GOP Gov. Arnold Scwharzenegger would veto the measure. Both times. Schwarzenegger called it “socialized medicine.”
But a funny thing has happened in the California legislature ever since Democrats took the governor’s office in 2011, first Jerry Brown and then Gavin Newsom: A single-payer healthcare bill never made it to their desks. In some years, thanks to medical industry lobbyists, the bill didn’t even get out of committee.
Make no mistake about it: Corporate lobbyists are horrified that Tom Steyer might become California’s governor. To stop Steyer, corporate forces and their allies in the Democratic establishment have moved from now-disgraced Rep. Eric Swalwell to Xavier Becerra, former US Secretary of Health and Human Services. Becerra, who won praise from the right-wing Murdoch press for pocketing the maximum campaign donation from Chevron, is now bending to the will of private interests on healthcare, according to KQED public radio.
Steyer’s unequivocal support of CalCare universal health coverage is one of the reasons he’s endorsed by Rep. Ro Khanna and the California Nurses Association (CNA), and why RootsAction (which I co-founded) came out in support last week.
One dividing-line issue among Democratic candidates is the California Billionaire Tax Act—a ballot initiative launched by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers that would impose a one-time emergency tax on the state’s 200 richest individuals to bolster healthcare. It’s supported by Steyer, Khanna, Bernie Sanders and opposed by Gov. Newsom and billionaire friends like Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt of Google. (As a funder/activist, Steyer used statewide ballot initiatives to win reforms, including Prop 39 in 2012 that closed a corporate tax loophole to fund green jobs and energy-efficiency in schools.)
The TV air war has taken a bizarre turn. While Steyer’s ads dominated for many weeks, he is now facing a barrage of negative ads funded by some of California’s powerful corporate interests straight-facedly accusing him of being a corporatist—of profiting from past investments his hedge fund had made in fossil fuels and private prisons. We know who’s funding the attacks on Steyer thanks to California’s DISCLOSE Act, which requires that the top funders of campaign ads be listed in the bottom third of the TV screen.
Even though California has a strongly-Democratic electorate, it’s likely that only one of the half-dozen serious Democratic gubernatorial aspirants will make it through the June “jungle primary” into November’s general election to face a Republican—probably Steve Hilton, a former Fox News contributor endorsed by Trump.
If Steyer is elected, will he prove to be the effective “class traitor” that most Californians need him to be—a governor who stands up to corporate greed and power? Though not as rich as Steyer, President Franklin Roosevelt certainly provides a role model as someone willing to fight “the economic royalists” he knew so well in order to uplift working people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Running for California Governor, Tom Steyer Says Billionaires Like Him ‘Should Pay More Taxes’
"I'm the billionaire who wants to tax people like me more. I'm the billionaire who's willing to stand up to the monopolies and the people who are ripping off Californians."
Apr 22, 2026
In a California gubernatorial race characterized by a lack of clear progressive choices and the specter of an all-Republican general election under the state's so-called "jungle primary," a hedge fund billionaire who believes that plutocrats like himself should pay more taxes is gaining progressive support.
On Tuesday, Farallon Capital founder Tom Steyer was endorsed by Our Revolution, the progressive political action group launched as a continuation of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) kneecapped 2016 presidential campaign.
Our Rev said that Steyer "has stepped forward with a platform that is clearly aligned with the priorities of our movement—single-payer healthcare, taxing extreme wealth, bold climate action, and getting money out of politics."
Steyer was interviewed Tuesday by The Lever's David Sirota, who asked about Our Revolution's support for a plebiscite to "tax billionaires like yourself," and how he squares "being the progressive movement's choice in this race while being one of the people who there's a ballot initiative to tax more."
The California Billionaire Tax would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on people worth $1 billion or more, to be paid in annual installments of 1% over five years. According to Forbes, Steyer is currently worth $2.4 billion.
"Well, David, I think people like me who are billionaires should pay more taxes," Steyer said.
"I'm the billionaire who wants to tax people like me more," Steyer added. "I'm the billionaire who's willing to stand up to the monopolies and the people who are ripping off Californians. I've done it for 15 years and I'll keep doing it."
That message has been echoed in one of Steyer's campaign ads, in which he asserts that "it's time for billionaires like me and big corporations to buy into the future of California and be willing to pay more."
Steyer continues:
A lot of people in California are acting as if we have a zero-sum game and they're defending their wealth and they're trying to make sure that they minimize their taxes. I am not scared about paying more money. Working Californians are being priced out of this state. It is not okay. We are creating more than enough money in this state for us all to succeed together without anybody suffering... [I] think that everybody who succeeded in this state owes a huge debt to the people who built this state and the working people who make this state run and work their asses off.
"We need to change our tax system," Steyer concludes in the ad. "We need more revenue. We need to be fair and I pledge to do all of those things. This is not rocket science."
In addition to his stance on taxation, Steyer has gained progressive support by funding climate initiatives, opposing the Trump administration's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown, and pouring more than $120 million into efforts to impeach President Donald Trump and in support of Proposition 50, the successful state ballot measure to redraw the state's congressional map in retaliation for Trump-backed Republican gerrymandering in Texas. He is also a prolific philanthropist.
On the flip side, the fact that Steyer is a hedge fund billionaire whose heavily self-funded campaign is the opposite of grassroots continues to fuel skepticism among progressives, many of whom view the mere existence of billionaires as an abject public policy failure. Steyer also came under fire over the revelation that his portfolio had been invested in private prison stocks decades ago.
Steyer said during his interview with Sirota that he doesn't agree with the assertion that billionaires are a public policy failure.
"I think that phrase obviously goes back to Karl Marx," he said. "And I believe if someone wants to come to California who has an idea to change the world and forms a company around it and it does really well and as a result they make a lot of money, that's fine with me."
With a dearth of progressives to choose from, more and more left-leaning groups and individuals are throwing their support behind Steyer. These include Courage California, Third Act, the California Teachers Association and other labor groups, and state lawmakers including Assemblymen Ash Kalra (D-25) and Alex Lee (D-24).
Some progressives are reluctantly backing Steyer due to the very real possibility of an all-Republican general election under California's open primary—in which the top two vote-getters advance, regardless of party. The "jungle primary" is set for June 2.
The latest weighted polling shows Trump-backed Fox News host Steve Hilton leading the race with 16% support, followed closely by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 14%. Those Republicans are trailed by Steyer (13%) and other Democrats: former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (13%), former Congresswoman Katie Porter (10%), and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan—the top choice of numerous Big Tech billionaires—at 5%.
Erstwhile Democratic frontrunner and now former Congressman Eric Swalwell suspended his race for governor and quit Congress earlier this month amid mounting allegations of rape and other sex crimes that he has denied.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Supreme Court Kills Tariffs, Trump Plots '15% Tax Out of YOUR Pockets to Feed HIS Deranged Ego'
"Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics," said former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer.
Feb 21, 2026
Shortly after the US Supreme Court on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, the Republican announced plans for a 10% global import tax under another law. By Saturday, he'd hiked it to 15%.
In a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court found that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs." Trump responded by not only lashing out at the justices but also invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for a 10% global tariff beginning February 24.
Then, in a Saturday morning Truth Social post, Trump said:
Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been 'ripping' the US off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Critics across the country swiftly blasted the announcement. Democratic strategist Jon Cooper argued that "Trump CANNOT legally impose a 15% global tariff because the US doesn't meet the clear emergency economic conditions envisioned by Section 122. If Trump tries to invoke it, it would certainly face immediate legal challenges, economic pushback, and potential congressional scrutiny."
Former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer declared that "Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics. This is a 15% tax out of YOUR pockets to feed HIS deranged ego."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, similarly said that "Donald Trump just announced a NEW 15% TAX on the American people. He does not care about you."
Another California Democrat, Congressman Ted Lieu, quipped that "crybaby Trump woke up this morning and still feels hurt from the Supreme Court slapping him. So he's taking it out on the American people by increasing his 10% tax increase to 15%. These temporary tariffs will be challenged in court and Democrats will kill them when they expire."
Elected Democrats have often spoken out against Trump's legally dubious duties, but the GOP-controlled Congress hadn't forcefully countered them. As Politico detailed Friday:
Before the ruling, while congressional Republicans had occasionally grumbled about the policy, they had largely fallen in line when actually required to vote on it. Now, the Supreme Court’s decision could put more pressure on them to break with the president...
Six House Republicans voted alongside Democrats last week to condemn Trump's tariffs on Canada, sending the measure to the Senate, which has already seen significant GOP defection in other votes on the duty measures. Senior House Democrats have vowed to bring up at least three more similar resolutions that will force GOP members to choose between their adherence to free trade principles and their MAGA base.
Last week, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, released a report laying out how Trump's economic policies, particularly the tariffs, "are making life unaffordable for millions of American small businesses, their workers, and their customers."
Markey held a virtual press conference with Massachusetts small business owners celebrating the Supreme Court's Friday ruling. The senator said that "for the last year, Trump has created Pain on Main with an affordability crisis plaguing communities across the country. At the heart of it are Trump's tariff taxes."
"The Supreme Court did what was right and struck down these illegal tariffs. Trump said the small businesses who brought this case hate our country. He’s wrong. Small businesses are our country," Markey continued. "I will keep fighting until every cent illegally collected from small businesses, consumers, and families in Massachusetts and across the country has been returned."
Keep ReadingShow Less
If Bloomberg Wants to Buy an Election, He Should Run as a Republican Against Trump--Not Sabotage Democrats
The mega-billionaire should be running against Trump in the Republican primaries, not as a Democrat. If he actually cared about this country more than stroking his massive ego that is exactly what he would be doing.
Feb 10, 2020
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is one of the 10 richest persons in the world, with a net worth approaching $60 billion, depending upon the vagaries of the stock and bond markets on any given day.
For anyone who is not a billionaire, it is almost impossible to grasp just how much money this is for a single human being. It would be like calculating the distance of our planet to a distant galaxy in centimeters. Bloomberg could spend $100 million every single day on his presidential campaign between now and election day in November--basically more than any candidate except Bloomberg and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer have spent so far in the entire 2019-20 election cycle--and he would still have a net worth greater than $30 billion. He would remain one of the 30 richest people in the world.
Think about that. Money basically means nothing to Bloomberg. It makes no material difference to his life--anymore than losing a penny would to most people--to spend all this money. At age 77, why the hell not? And wouldn't it be fun to be president? You only live once.
"Bloomberg could spend $100 million every single day on his presidential campaign between now and election day in November--basically more than any candidate except Bloomberg and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer have spent so far in the entire 2019-20 election cycle--and he would still have a net worth greater than $30 billion. He would remain one of the 30 richest people in the world."
Bloomberg may well be successful. He has already made media corporations hugely profitable by flooding the airwaves with his expensive and slick advertising--he has shown something corporate America knows well: carpet-bombing advertisements works if you can afford it--and this is just the beginning. He has bought off everyone with a pulse so he has a large chunk of the political class on his payroll, with many more to come. He will accordingly get terrific mainstream press coverage, the type any other candidate would like, and Bernie Sanders can't even begin to imagine.
In short, Bloomberg is demonstrating the deep problems of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits candidates to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaigns, especially in a period of breathtaking wealth inequality. Why be like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and spend a fortune on other people running for office? You are the smart guy after all; spend it on yourself.
If Bloomberg is successful, this could well become the new normal. Presidential elections will be contests between the wealthy who put their own money on the line. Bloomberg demonstrates that no one else could possibly compete with them in terms of resources. We are already a way down that road in Congressional elections. The already fading notion that this is a functional democracy will take another sharp turn in the wrong direction.
Bloomberg explains his decision to run for president as a concern with how Trump is such a dreadful president and that he is best positioned to defeat Trump, restore integrity to governance, and change his deplorable policies, especially on the environment and guns.
Fair enough. But aside from the issue of billionaires buying elections, there is one other extraordinary flaw in his thinking: Bloomberg should be running against Trump as a Republican, not a Democrat. If he actually cared about this country more than stroking his massive ego that is exactly what he would be doing.
This is not such a crazy idea. For starters, Bloomberg is a Republican, or he was until the tea party and then Trump showed up. He fits the profile of the sort of traditional Republican most Americans have been familiar with for generations. He is pro-business, pro-empire, anti-labor, and not especially sympathetic to the concerns of minorities or the dispossessed. These old-school Republicans were committed to the rule of law, however, and to majority rule.
Now Trump has come in and crystallized currents already growing in the Republican Party, like the "tea party" explosion in 2009-10. With his endless lying and rejection of the rule of law, Trump has led the Republicans toward a stronger embrace of authoritarianism, even, dare I say it, fascism. There are discussions about whether Trump would even leave office were he to lose the 2020 presidential election! The career Republican politicians have capitulated to Trump en masse, hence discrediting this party in toto.
Because of the way U.S. elections are structured, we have a two-party system and it is very difficult to replace one of the existing parties with a new one, despite popular support for introducing new ideas into our politics. So the United States is moving toward an exceptionally dangerous place where one of the two main parties is flirting with fascism and dedicated to maintaining political power with only a minority of the country supporting it. It holds the rule of law in contempt.
Bloomberg could have been a real patriot and applied his billions of dollars to challenging Trump and the fascist trend within the Republican party. He could have done everything possible to expose Trump and to locate and encourage anti-Trump Republicans. He could have supported primary challengers on the Republican side to defeat Trump's allies and enablers. He could have built up a parallel party apparatus employing thousands of Republican operatives at big salaries. He probably would have lost, but you never know for sure until you try. Bloomberg could outspend Trump 20 to 1. He would have been able to force public attention to this issue, and keep it there. He might have made Trump completely crack up. At any rate, he would have had an enormous impact that might have helped to slow and begin to reverse the Trumpian drift.
"If Bloomberg is successful in buying the Democratic nomination... The party could disintegrate enough that Trump waltzes to a second term, precisely what Bloomberg claims he does not want to have happen."
Then, if he failed to get the Republican presidential nomination, Bloomberg could throw his support and his resources to the Democrats, as he claims he plans to do now.
He would have been a patriot, perhaps even a hero.
Instead, he has opted to bring his takeover project to the Democratic Party. The Democrats are currently in a profound struggle for determining the course of the party between their progressive and establishment wings. By most accounts, patching it up by November will be crucial for electoral success. Bloomberg's entrance as an establishment savior has won him understandable support from those Democrats who dislike the progressive trend, and believe, erroneously in my opinion, that Bloomberg is the best bet to defeat Trump in November. If Bloomberg is successful in buying the Democratic nomination, or being the kingmaker who decides it, it will generate such anger and antipathy in the progressive wing of the party to the point where even his billions cannot buy off people to see things his way. The party could disintegrate enough that Trump waltzes to a second term, precisely what Bloomberg claims he does not want to have happen.
The moral of the story for establishment Democrats is don't be seduced by Bloomberg and his billions. He will break up the Democrats and cost them the election if he or someone he supports takes the nomination.
So Bloomberg's legacy would be that he left his own party to the neo-fascist crowd and went on to blow-up the Democrats, keeping the Republicans in control.
That is 180 degrees away from being a hero, or a patriot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nobody Can Build Like I Can Build. Nobody': Watch Winds Knock Down Trump Border Wall
"What a perfect visual metaphor for a presidency fuelled by hot air."
Jan 29, 2020
Mother Nature: 1.
President Donald Trump: 0.
That's the scorecard from the southern border after gusts of wind of up to 37 miles per hour took down a section of the president's much-vaunted border wall in Calexio, California.
The steel wall sections that toppled under the winds, which fell in the Beaufort Scale as "moderate gale" force gusts, were held in place by concrete anchors that had not fully set, according to reporting from the Guardian.
Watch the winds blow the wall over:
News of the collapse drew mockery from opponents of the president's immigration policy.
"Point and laugh everyone, just point and laugh," immigration activist Juan Escalante said on Twitter.
Billionaire Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer quoted Trump's own words in a tweet linking to a news story about the wall's collapse.
The news even drew amused reaction from across the Atlantic.
"What a perfect visual metaphor for a presidency fuelled by hot air," said Scottish National Party politician John Nicolson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Iowa Debate, Progressives Resist Efforts to Divide Them
The moderators did all they could to start a fight, but Sanders and Warren refused to bite.
Jan 14, 2020
In the lead-up to Tuesday night's Democratic debate at Drake University in Iowa, there was a lot of chatter about the growing negativity between the progressive candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The CNN moderators did their best to draw it out, asking Sanders whether it was true that he'd told Warren a woman couldn't win the presidency, and getting Warren to reinforce her recollection that he had said it. But Sanders more or less put the matter to rest with his strong statement that "of course a woman can win"--and, furthermore, that he will strongly support whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic primary.
Sanders also reminded viewers that he stepped aside when there was a movement to draft Warren to run for President in 2016, and did not announce his own candidacy until she decided not to run that year. (I remember it well--the birth of a progressive campaign unofficially dubbed "Plan B for Bernie.")
The CNN crew tried again to sow division between the two leading progressives over the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which Sanders opposes and Warren has said she will support, because it makes modest improvements on workers' rights and reins in Big Pharma. Both candidates agree it doesn't go far enough. No real sparks there.
It was a paradigm shift, in part, because for so long the ambient pro-establishment, pro-wealth bias in Democratic debates has been so overwhelming that it has come to sound like simple common sense.
For the most part, the point of the debate, as far as the three centrist candidates--Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden--as well as the CNN team, were concerned, was to expose the far-out nature of the progressives' vision for Medicare for All, free college, and other "grand ideological schemes that will never see the light of day," as Klobuchar put it.
But the progressives received an unexpectedly strong assist from Tom Steyer, who supported perhaps the most important argument, on health care, made by both Warren and Sanders: Providing universal, publicly funded health care would not bankrupt the United States. In fact, quite the opposite is true--Americans already pay more for health care than citizens of other countries.
The reason, as Warren patiently explained to a sour-looking Brianee Pfannenstiel of the Des Moines Register, is simple corporate greed. We waste millions of dollars on unnecessary bureaucracy and just plain highway robbery when it comes to drug prices, Warren said. All of that could be eliminated, and Americans could get health care, too.
As Sanders put it, "We are now spending twice as much as any other country on health care. Why is that?" The answer, he said, is "greed and corruption" of the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries.
"It is not complicated," Steyer said, jumping in. "We have corporations who are having their way with the American people."
Steyer's intervention on this point helped tipped the scales so the balance between the progressives and the real politikers was 3-to-3--a historic ratio. It was a paradigm shift, in part, because for so long the ambient pro-establishment, pro-wealth bias in Democratic debates has been so overwhelming that it has come to sound like simple common sense.
But when Klobuchar derided the Medicare for All bill because, she said, two-thirds of Democrats in the Senate don't support it, she was describing a political, not an economic or structural reality. As she herself pointed out later, members of Congress are outnumbered 2-to-1 by pharmaceutical company lobbyists. That has a lot to do with politicians' view of the possible.
The idea that we must continue to spend untold trillions on the military, but that it is ludicrous to think of making health care and education available to everyone in the richest country on Earth is not, actually, common sense. But no one except Sanders and Warren had made those kinds of out-of-the-box points--until Steyer joined them, and suddenly the progressives were taking up half the debate stage.
We are so accustomed to a lone voice-in-the-wilderness candidate who tries to stake out progressive positions only to be condescendingly ushered offstage by the sensibly centrist popular kids, this moment in history snuck up on us.
But here we are, living under the white nationalist candidacy of Donald Trump. Australia and Canada are burning, due to the ravages of climate change. And the go-along-to-get-along, incrementalist approach to Democratic politics suddenly does not seem as sensible.
Even the centrists now agree that the Iraq war was a mistake, that economic inequality is a huge problem, and that transitioning to a carbon-free energy system must be a key priority in 2020 (or 2040 or 2050, as Klobuchar stated, to which Sanders replied that such foot-dragging will surely make the planet "uninhabitable").
The centrists have adopted some progressive talking points. Buttigieg gave a shout-out to the Poor People's Campaign marching into Iowa, and mocked Democrats' reluctance to talk about poverty, preferring to cater to the middle class. He noted that scripture does not say "as you do to the middle class, so you do unto to me." But he made that point in the service of his argument that America should not offer universal free college, because those who can afford it should be made to pay--an argument that could have been used to oppose the creation of the Social Security system.
Buttigieg's whole pitch is that he is younger and hipper than the other candidates, and therefore more likely to win, and to bring a kind of progressive-lite sensibility to governing. Climate change "is personal to me," he said, because he will have to live for longer with the consequences.
When the debate started with Sanders and Biden defending their opposite positions on the Iraq war (Sanders said he was right, and therefore most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, Biden said he had evolved on the issue), Buttigieg pointed out that he served in the military with a lot of people who could barely remember Iraq--or 9/11 for that matter.
War and foreign policy are suddenly more prominent issues after Trump's assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and the subsequent deterioration of relations between the two countries. This is an opening for Buttigieg--the only candidate with a military background. But despite telling a good personal anecdote about watching a young father go off to war, he lacked the progressives' clarity.
Like Klobuchar and Biden, he gave a murky answer to the question of withdrawing troops from the Middle East, and what the proper U.S. role should be. As Steyer pointed out, "there is no clear strategy for what we are trying to accomplish" in the region.
Sanders called for an end to "endless wars," and rebuilding the United Nations.
Warren described sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee and listening to optimistic reports from military commanders who keep promising that the United States has "turned the corner" in Afghanistan. Getting off one of the best lines of the debate, she declared, "We've turned the corner so many times, we're going in circles."
Buttigieg's whole pitch is that he is younger and hipper than the other candidates, and therefore more likely to win, and to bring a kind of progressive-lite sensibility to governing.
"We have to stop this mindset that we can solve everything with combat troops," Warren added.
All of the Democrats endorsed Congressional authorization for military action, and the recent resolutions to demand that Trump come to Congress for that authority, instead of usurping war powers, as many recent administrations have done.
Biden pretended that Obama had received Congressional authorization for all of his military actions. "There's no way you can negotiate with terrorists," he added--a stale piece of rhetoric as well as a non sequitur.
Buttigieg lamented the demise of the Iran nuclear deal and called for a three-year sunset provision on any military authorization--a reasonable proposal to avoid mission creep and make Congress responsible for war-making.
Toward the end of the debate, all of the candidates answered questions about their perceived weaknesses. For Bernie, it was socialism. He declared that Trump has benefited from, and continues to promote, socialism for the rich.
For Warren, it was whether she will scare away moderates. She pointed to her two Republican brothers in Oklahoma, with whom she shares basic values.
For Biden, it was whether he can handle Trump's nastiness, and the attacks on his son. He got a laugh, saying he is already the object of Trump's affection, but then wandered a bit, blustering about how people where he grew up are experiencing hard economic times and not really coming to a point.
Klobuchar was asked if she can get beyond being the realistic, sensible candidate and inspire people. That's when she said it is "easy to sketch out grand ideological schemes that will never see the light of day."
She and Buttigieg made a very direct pitch to Republican voters who are disgusted by Trump, and are looking for a return to decency.
And then there was Steyer, who responded to the charge that he is just a rich guy by defending his advocacy for saving the planet, his determination to give away all of his wealth before he dies, and his willingness to push for Trump's impeachment before anyone else. "It's always worth it to do the right thing," he told Wolf Blitzer, who wondered if dumping millions into pro-impeachment ads might be a waste if the Senate doesn't convict Trump.
The same could be said for all of the progressive campaigns. Someone has to get out there and tell the truth, even if it might be too late.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy