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
washington post
‘Poor Jeff’: Sanders Ridicules Bezos-Owned Washington Post for Attacking Billionaire Tax Plan
"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I wonder why?"
Mar 03, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders mocked Jeff Bezos on Tuesday after the editorial board of the newspaper owned by the Amazon founder denounced his plan to tax billionaires' wealth.
In an opinion piece published Monday, the Washington Post editorial board accused Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored Sanders' wealth tax plan, of threatening to "strangle America’s golden goose" by hitting billionaires with an annual 5% wealth tax.
"Sanders wants to confiscate 5% of all assets every year from America’s billionaires, with the goal of stealing half their fortunes," the editorial complained. "He estimates, unrealistically, that this could raise $4.4 trillion over 10 years to fund a wish list of progressive fantasies, including something akin to a universal basic income and more government-managed healthcare."
The editorial then argued this was bad because "even for billionaires, a 5% tax on every asset they own would virtually wipe out any gains they make in a normal year," and would force them to sell off some illiquid assets such as "collections of wines, art, jewelry, and yachts" just to make their annual payments to the government.
The editorial concluded by claiming "Sanders and Khanna take as a given the capacity of American capitalism to deliver continuing prosperity, no matter how many anchors they weigh it down with," then warned that "economic history proves that future growth is never guaranteed."
In a social media post, Sanders mocked the Post editors for publishing an opinion piece defending the economic interests of their owner, whose current net worth is estimated by Forbes to be well north of $200 billion.
"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," Sanders wrote. "I wonder why? If enacted, Bezos would owe $12 billion in taxes, and an average family of four would receive a $12,000 direct payment. Poor Jeff would be left with just $224 billion to survive."
In a news article about the tax plan published by the Post Monday, Khanna was quoted as saying it was needed to address the historic disparities in wealth that have only grown over the last 50 years.
"This is Sen. Sanders' defining vision for our age," Khanna explained. "It is the most ambitious and transformative legislation for our times to tackle inequality in the New Gilded Age."
Wealth inequality has become so acute that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal in February published a news analysis declaring that billionaires' tax avoidance schemes were "becoming a problem for the economy."
The Journal last month also published an analysis of US wealth inequality by chief economics commentator Greg Ip showing that corporate profits’ share of gross domestic income is now the highest it has been in more than 40 years, while the share of income paid out in workers’ wages is at the lowest.
“Profits have soared since the pandemic, and the market value attached to those profits even more,” wrote Ip. “The result: Capital, which includes businesses, shareholders, and superstar employees, is triumphant, while the average worker ekes out marginal gains.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Election-Emergency Plot Is Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook
Beware the normalization of the idea that if the electorate appears likely to choose “wrongly,” an emergency can justify changing the rules of democracy.
Feb 27, 2026
Recently, Steve Bannon told an audience:
And I will tell you right now, as God is my witness, if we lose the midterms… some in this room are going to prison—myself included.
Now, it looks like President Donald Trump and the people around him are seriously considering declaring an emergency to let them seize control of this November’s elections, according to reporting yesterday in the Washington Post:
Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.
Donald Trump and the lickspittles and criminals he’s surrounded himself with are in a panic. If Democrats take the House or Senate in this November’s elections, they’ll have the power of subpoena so the regime’s crimes and corruption will be laid out for everybody to see. Some could even go to prison, including Trump himself.
He’s been basically screaming, “Do something!!!” at Republicans for the past year. It started publicly with his demanding that Texas and then other red states further gerrymander their elections to reduce the number of Democrats in the House.
If you’ve studied history—and you know I have—that’s the moment when the hair on the back of your neck should stand up.
In red states they’re purging voters in blue cities from the rolls like there’s no tomorrow, and the GOP is trying to recruit “election observers” to challenge signatures on mail-in ballots on an industrial level. As reporter Greg Palast pointed out, this is how Trump took the White House in 2024; if it hadn’t been for over 4 million (mostly Black) fully qualified US citizens being purged or having their ballots rejected after technical challenges, Kamala Harris would be our president today.
But given how badly Trump’s doing in the polls today, even all these efforts don’t look like they’ll be enough to keep the House and Senate in Republican hands.
So now Trump toadies like Jerome Corsi (the creator of the Birther movement and the Swift Boat slurs, who’s been a guest on my program multiple times) have an idea: Just imitate what Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Adolf Hitler, and other dictators have done to hang onto power when they get unpopular: Declare an emergency and use it to rig the election.
Yesterday, The Washington Post detailed how MAGA-aligned activists are now openly discussing manufacturing or exaggerating a national emergency to justify Trump’s agents in the federal government to interfere in this November’s elections.
These aren’t fringe anonymous trolls on some obscure message board; they’re people operating in proximity to the president of the United States. Corsi arguably destroyed John Kerry’s chances in 2004 and lit the Birther fuse that catapulted Trump into political fame.
And they’re floating the idea that if normal democratic processes don’t produce the “right” outcome, they could help create a fake crisis to seize control of the election nationally.
If you’ve studied history—and you know I have—that’s the moment when the hair on the back of your neck should stand up.
Because this isn’t new, creative, or even uniquely American: It’s straight out of the authoritarian playbook.
When political actors like Corsi begin talking openly about declaring an emergency to override or interfere with elections, they’re not blowing smoke: They’re testing a classic dictator’s narrative.
In 1933, Germany’s parliament building, the Reichstag, went up in flames at the hands of a mentally ill Dutch communist who was probably maneuvered into the act by the Nazis. Adolf Hitler declared it “proof” of an existential communist threat. Civil liberties were suspended overnight. Gone in the blink of an eye were freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble as Hitler’s goons began to round up his political opponents and throw them into his new concentration camp at Dachau.
Elections were technically still held, but under conditions so distorted they no longer qualified as free or fair in any meaningful sense, and the so-called “temporary” emergency became Hitler’s legal bridge to a permanent dictatorship.
Similarly, in Turkey in 2016, elements of the military tried to pull off a coup against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan while he was out of town. Erdoğan declared a national state of emergency and then kept it in place permanently. Tens of thousands of protesters were arrested. Judges and teachers were purged from their jobs, and media outlets were closed down for being “fake news.”
While emergency rule was in effect, Turkey held an election that transformed its parliamentary democracy into a hyper-presidential system tailored to give virtually all federal power to Erdoğan himself. It was the end of democracy in Turkey.
Vladimir Putin’s rise offers another variation. In 1999, a series of apartment bombings killed hundreds of Russians and the Kremlin blamed Chechen terrorists. The attacks propelled Putin, then a relatively unknown prime minister, into the presidency on a wave of fear and fury.
Putin then declared a state of emergency that expanded his police powers, gave him tighter media control, and let him seize control of the elections process. In the years since then, elections in Russia have become ritual rather than reality. The ballots are printed every few years, and the votes are counted, but the outcome is never in doubt.
Viktor Orbán in Hungary shows yet another model. He declared a “state of crisis” over migration by Syrian refugees in 2015 and kept renewing it long after migration levels collapsed. During the Covid-19 pandemic, he got the parliament to give him the authority to rule by decree on an indefinite basis; it’s still in effect.
As a result, elections still happen (there’s one coming up), but the media landscape was completely taken over by Orbán-friendly billionaires (see: CBS, WaPo, LA Times, Fox “News,” Sinclair, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, and 1,500 right-wing radio stations). Orbán didn’t need to cancel Hungary’s elections; he simply reshaped the legal and political environment in which they happened.
There’s a common thread in all of this. The crisis wannabe dictators inevitably declare—real, exaggerated, or cynically manipulated—become the justification for seizing extraordinary powers. Those powers narrow dissent, intimidate opponents, and functionally rig the elections.
That’s why this shocking new reporting in the Washington Post is so alarming. When political actors like Corsi begin talking openly about declaring an emergency to override or interfere with elections, they’re not blowing smoke: They’re testing a classic dictator’s narrative.
They’re trying to figure out—and will learn from the national reaction to this Post reporting—whether they can persuade the public that normal election processes are too dangerous to trust. After all, in each of the cases I listed above, the machinery of democracy was used to hollow out democracy itself.
And they may not even have to manufacture an emergency: if Trump can sufficiently provoke Iran, they may activate their proxy network around the world and in the United States, and we could be facing a genuine crisis on the order of 9/11. This is one of the few ways to make sense of today’s massive military buildup in the Middle East.
The danger here isn’t just a fabricated catastrophe or a retaliatory strike by Iran, although those are pretty damn severe. It’s the normalization of the idea that if the electorate appears likely to choose “wrongly,” an emergency can justify changing the rules of democracy.
This plot will only be stopped if it’s widely reported and an outraged public rises up in opposition.
History shows us, over and over again, that when a nation loses its democracy to an aspiring autocrat, the language and strategy used is always the same. “The nation is under threat.” “The moment is an emergency.” “Normal rules must be suspended—just temporarily—to save the country.”
And in every case, “temporary” turned out to be the most dangerous word of all.
We’re now at that moment where influential figures are publicly contemplating that path, and the lesson from history isn’t subtle. The real emergency, in a constitutional republic, begins when leaders like Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan and Trump—and their toadies like Corsi, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, and Tulsi Gabbard—decide that elections themselves are the problem.
Multiple observers have noted that this plan is grossly unconstitutional. But so were Trump’s tariffs (which also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act emergency authority as their rationale), and the Supreme Court let him run with them for almost a year before stopping him.
Similarly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement goons kicking in people’s front doors and smashing their car windows to drag them off without a judicial warrant is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but Trump’s agents continued to do it every day. Something being against the law or the Constitution has never stopped our convicted felon-rapist-insurrectionist president in the past.
This plot will only be stopped if it’s widely reported and an outraged public rises up in opposition. Call (202-224-3121) your elected representatives—Democratic and Republican—and let them know you’re onto this plot and won’t tolerate it. And that if they have any fidelity left to the Constitution and American values, they won’t either.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Win': Judge Bars Trump DOJ From Searching Devices of Washington Post Journalist
One press freedom group called the raid on Hannah Natanson's home last month a "warning shot to journalists and whistleblowers nationwide."
Feb 25, 2026
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the US Justice Department cannot search the devices it seized from Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post journalist whose home was raided by the FBI earlier this year as part of an investigation into a government contractor.
William Porter, magistrate judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's Arlington Division, wrote in his 22-page decision that the Trump administration's "failure to identify and analyze" the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) in its application for a search warrant in the case "has seriously undermined the court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding."
The PPA shields journalists from being forced to turn over work materials to law enforcement. During the raid on Natanson's home, FBI agents reportedly seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, and other devices.
"Many government lawyers had multiple opportunities to identify the PPA as controlling authority and to include an analysis of it in the warrant application," Porter wrote. "None of them did."
Porter added that he hopes "this search was conducted—as the government contends—to gather evidence of a crime in a single case, not to collect information about confidential sources from a reporter who has published articles critical of the administration."
Runa Sandvik, founder of a startup that works to protect journalists' digital security, called the ruling a "huge win for Hannah Natanson and the Washington Post."
The Post noted in its reporting on the decision that federal prosecutors "acknowledged that only a small portion of the information on the devices seized from Natanson would be relevant to the case against" Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor who was indicted last month on charges of illegally obtaining and sharing classified materials.
Federal prosecutors "asked Porter to allow a government filter team to search through the devices for relevant information," and the team "would then hand over the responsive information to prosecutors," the Post reported.
Porter rejected that proposal in his ruling, citing "documented reporting on government leak investigations and the government’s well-chronicled efforts to stop them."
"Allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product—most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources—is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” Porter wrote. “The concern that a filter team may err by neglect, by malice, or by honest difference of opinion is heightened where its institutional interests are so directly at odds with the press freedom values at stake.”
Press freedom organizations have condemned the Trump administration's raid on Natanson's home and seizure of her work devices as an alarming escalation in a broader assault on journalism.
Earlier this month, the Freedom of the Press Foundation filed a complaint against Gordon Kromberg, the federal prosecutor who signed the search warrant application targeting Natanson.
“Kromberg and the government omitted a federal law that should have prohibited the raid of Hannah Natanson’s home when applying for a search warrant," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for FPF, said in a statement, referring to the Privacy Protection Act. "That choice now threatens to expose Natanson’s sources and cripple her ability to report, while also sending a warning shot to journalists and whistleblowers nationwide."
“Disciplinary bodies cannot look the other way and ignore misconduct that threatens the First Amendment, particularly from an administration with a long history of misleading judges and everyone else," Stern added. "When prosecutors abuse their power to facilitate efforts to silence reporting and intimidate news sources, disciplinary authorities must hold them accountable and impose real consequences.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular