

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.
Sen. Maggie Hassan said that while paying back businesses hit by Trump’s illegal tariffs, the administration “refuses to provide relief for families.”
American families could pay a combined $330 billion this year as a result of President Donald Trump's aggressive tariff policy, according to a report released Friday by the Democratic minority on the Joint Economic Committee in Congress.
Although the Supreme Court ruled Trump's use of emergency powers to pass sweeping tariffs illegal last month, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the government is expected to bring in "virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026" compared with the previous year, as Trump has continued to enact new tariffs using different legal authorities in hopes of getting around the high court's ruling.
If Bessent's projection holds true, the committee's Democrats estimated that the average US household would pay more than $2,500 in tariff costs this year, a considerable increase from the more than $1,700 the committee found Americans paid in 2025.
The minority said it reached its findings based on official data on the amount of tariff revenue collected by the Treasury since 2025 combined with independent research from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found last month that only about 5% of tariff costs are borne by foreign entities. About 30% is taken on by domestic companies, and the remaining 65% is passed on to consumers.
There is already somewhat of an answer in the works for businesses to recoup the illegal duties they've had to pay. Earlier this month, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the Treasury Department and Customs and Border Protection must return $166 billion to around 330,000 importers hit by tariffs, including thousands of companies that have filed lawsuits seeking to recover their money.
However, the Trump administration has said it could take more than 4.4 million hours to process all refund requests for more than 53 million entries subject to the now-illegal tariffs.
On Thursday, Brandon Lord, an official with US Customs and Border Protection responsible for tariff collections, informed the court that CBP is about 40-80% done creating a system that will allow importers and brokers to submit refund requests. He said in a filing last week that it could be operational as soon as mid-April.
But Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the ranking member of the joint committee, lamented on Friday that while businesses are going to be reimbursed with interest, "the Trump administration refuses to provide relief for families" and is instead "choosing to institute new tariffs that will push prices even higher.”
On Thursday, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), another committee member, introduced a bill to create a new tax rebate for individuals and families hit by tariffs.
The so-called "Working Families Refund" would provide a $600 rebate to individuals earning $90,000 or less annually and to head-of-household filers earning $120,000 or less. Joint filers earning $180,000 or less per year would receive a $1,200 rebate. Each family would also receive an additional $600 for each dependent child.
"This is money that belongs to working families—not the CEOs of Walmart or Amazon or any other big corporation,” Heinrich said.
Trump has pressed ahead with his tariffs despite their rising unpopularity. In an NBC News poll last week, 55% of voters said the tariffs have hurt the economy, while just 33% said they have helped. And as his newly launched war with Iran has heightened economic instability, 62% of voters said they disapproved of his handling of inflation and the cost of living.
Seeking to stop Trump from squeezing a political win out of his policy's failure, Heinrich's bill also forbids the president from putting his own name on the tariff rebate checks, as he famously did with Covid-19 stimulus checks sent months before the 2020 election.
“The president may call the affordability crisis a ‘hoax,’ but working people feel it every time they pay for groceries or everyday essentials," Heinrich said. "This bill will return the money lost to Trump’s tariffs back to the people who paid the price.”
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%.
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."
"Our government should be accountable to the people, not the whims of a power-hungry executive," said one Common Cause campaigner.
Less than a week after a court filing revealed that President Donald Trump is suing his own Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns during his first term, former federal officials and watchdog groups on Thursday called out his attempt to abuse "powerful tools for holding government accountable."
The legal group Democracy Forward filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Common Cause, the Project On Government Oversight, ex-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, former National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, and Kathryn Keneally and Gilbert Rothenberg, who both held leadership roles in the US Department of Justice's Tax Division.
"This case is extraordinary because the president controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics," states the amicus brief. "Collusive litigation threatens the integrity of the judicial process by risking the court's entanglement in an illegitimate proceeding. And although the complaint has significant defects—it was filed too late, against the wrong party, and for an unsupported and excessive sum of damages—the conflicts of interest make it uncertain whether the Department of Justice will zealously defend the public fisc in the same way that it has against other plaintiffs claiming damages for related events."
"To maintain the integrity of the judicial process in the face of these highly irregular circumstances, the court should consider exercising its inherent judicial authority to proactively manage this case from the outset," argued the former officials and groups, known as amici. Specifically, they said:
"To treat this case like business as usual," the coalition declared, "would threaten the integrity of the justice system and the important taxpayer and privacy protections at the heart of this case."
In a statement about the new filing in the Southern District of Florida, Abigail Bellows, Common Cause's senior policy director for anti-corruption and accountability, stressed that "we are watching a president attempt to bully the IRS into giving him billions of our taxpayer dollars."
"Our government should be accountable to the people, not the whims of a power-hungry executive," Bellows said. "We urge the court to take steps to promote judicial integrity and protect the public interest."
President Trump has made $4 billion since his second inauguration. And now, he's suing the Treasury Department and IRS for $10 billion more in "damages."So we're filing a brief urging the court to reject President Trump’s scheme and protect taxpayers.
[image or embed]
— Democracy Forward (@democracyforward.org) February 5, 2026 at 5:37 PM
In addition to representing the amici in this case, Democracy Forward has launched various other lawsuits against Trump and his administration, which have faced sweeping allegations of corruption since the president returned to power a year ago.
According to an analysis published by the New York Times editorial board last month, on the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration, Trump and his family enriched themselves to the tune of at least $1.4 billion during the first year of his second term—largely through investment in cryptocurrencies, though he's also secured settlements from tech and media companies.
Various other members of the second Trump administration have also been accused of corruption and conflicts of interest, and as the Times separately revealed in December, many rich and powerful contributors to Trump's post-election fundraising haul have received corporate-friendly regulatory changes, dropped enforcement cases, government contracts, and even pardons.
"The president's corruption continues, this time in an attempt to take $10 billion dollars of the taxpayers' money, which threatens to make a mockery out of our justice system," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman. "Not only does the president's baseless case have significant legal defects, but there are colossal conflicts of interest at play."
"We thank these experts for raising these serious concerns about how President Trump is seeking to further illegally line his own pockets at the public’s expense and our brief urges the court to exercise its power to ensure the matter is not one-sided."