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
wealth inequality
The Rich in the US Are Getting Even Richer—and That's Bad News for Our Democracy
These ultra-wealthy individuals have outsized influence on our democratic system—and have actively worked to undermine it.
Jan 23, 2026
The top 15 wealthiest people in America are part of a very, very exclusive club: those with over $100,000,000,000 in net worth. After double checking those zeroes, we can confidently say that yes, there are 15 centi-billionaires living among us.
And, according to a new Institute for Policy Studies analysis of data from the Forbes real time billionaire list, the combined wealth of that 12-figure club grew from $2.4 trillion to $3.1 trillion over the course of 2025.
For context, that 30.3% rate of growth outpaced both the S&P 500 (16%) and billionaires in general (20.8%) over the last year. To put it succinctly, the wealthiest Americans are accumulating capital faster than everyone else.
The top 15 wealthiest billionaires aren’t the only ones doing well for themselves. Our analysis found that the number of US billionaires increased from 813 with combined wealth of $6.7 trillion at the end of 2024 to 935 US billionaires with combined assets of $8.1 trillion.
The top five wealthiest billionaires all saw huge wealth jumps in 2025.
- Elon Musk of Tesla-X and SpaceX with $726 billion, up from $421 billion a year ago.
- Larry Page of Google, with $257 billion, up from $156 billion a year ago.
- Larry Ellison of Oracle fame with $245 billion, up from $209 billion a year ago.
- Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $242 billion, up from $233.5 billion a year ago.
- Sergey Brin of Google with $237 billion, up from $148.9 billion a year ago.
The three wealthiest dynastic families in the US hold an estimated $757 billion, up from $657.8 billion at the end of 2024, a 16% gain. These are:
- Walton: Seven members of the Walton Family with combined wealth of $483 billion, up from $404.3 billion a year ago.
- Mars: Six members of Mars family with combined wealth of $120 billion, down from $130.4 billion a year ago.
- Koch: Two members of the Koch family have a combined wealth of $154.8 billion, up from $121.1 billion a year ago.
As we predicted it would at the time, the Covid-19 pandemic drastically accelerated wealth concentration.
On March 18, 2020, for example, Elon Musk had wealth valued just under $25 billion. A little over five years at the end of 2025, Musk’s wealth is $726 billion, a dizzying 2,800% increase from before the onset of the pandemic.
Jeff Bezos saw his wealth rise from $113 billion on March 18, 2020 to $242 billion at the end of 2025.
Three Walton family members—Jim, Alice and Rob—saw their combined assets increase from $161.1 billion on March 18, 2020 to $378 billion at the end of 2025.
The extreme concentration of wealth that our continued analysis of billionaires underscores is deeply concerning for the future of our country. These ultra-wealthy individuals have outsized influence on our democratic system—and have actively worked to undermine it. And these spectacular riches comes at the expense of workers, the ones who are actually generating wealth. Social services are being cut while tax burdens are eased on the rich.
Fighting back against wealth concentration will take a two-pronged approach. We have to empower the working class, strengthening unions and improving living conditions. We also have to raise and taxes and close wealth accumulation loopholes, or else billionaire power will only grow.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Unequal Economy Means the US Can't Quit War
The unprecedented concentration of wealth in the hands of a group of oligarchs pushes the United States toward a military economy.
Dec 29, 2025
The United States is drawn to war on every front, like a moth to a candle. It does not matter that Americans are sick of foreign wars stretching back 25 years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Venezuela, wars that have bankrupted the nation. It has no effect that the United States lacks the economic, technological, and manufacturing capacity necessary to sustain a conventional war. Nor would the United States likely win an unconventional war employing nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information warfare.
The critics allowed to appear on TV like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs attribute this warmongering to the foolishness and the ignorance of political leaders like President Donald Trump, or to the incompetence of bureaucrats. They intentionally avoid any analysis of the economic structure of the United States, or the role of multinational banks and corporations in the formulation of policy. Their only explanation for the drive for war is the foolish actions of a “few bad apples.”
No one wants war, including the rich and powerful on all sides, in Beijing and Washington, in Berlin and Moscow, in Tehran and Tel Aviv. Yet the beating of the drums of war continues, and it grows louder. The appetite for war spreads like a vermillion fungus across the entire nation, with a military culture pushed through newspapers, movies, and television broadcasts. Preparation for war is a means of controlling the “little people” in a totalitarian manner.
The US government is pressuring every ally to rapidly increase defense spending, up to 5%, and to do so far more rapidly than can possibly be done in such a short time without massive corruption and waste. The military buildup is but a transfer of wealth, not an increase in security.
So, Why War?
The United States is collapsing as an economy, as a society, and as a civilization, weighed down by a massive debt, burdened by collapsing infrastructure and dying educational and research institutions, and strangled by a culture of pornography and narcissism. Above all, the extreme concentration of wealth over the last 20 years, since government was captured completely by the super rich, has meant that a handful of conceited frauds can determine the policy for the entire nation, and decide the fate of everyone. The basic interests of the vast majority of citizens are entirely ignored. The republic, and all traces of participatory democracy, have been consigned to the trash bin of history.
The international trade system and the embrace of “free trade” ideology played a major role in pushing the United States toward war around the world. Supply chains link together factories in loops that encircle the globe. Manufactured goods and agricultural products are brought into the United States from over the world, not because doing so is good for Americans, but because the multinational banks that control the economy seek out the cheapest labor and cheapest goods. Virtually all consumer goods in the United States go through logistics and distribution systems controlled by multinational corporations. Unlike the situation in 1945, a large part of the money that citizens (rebranded as “consumers”) spend at Walmart, Best Buy, or Amazon goes to the stockholders of those corporations and offers little or no benefit for the local economy.
The increase in military spending is a policy choice; it is the only way to avoid economic collapse.
Until the 1950s, most of what Americans ate came from local, family-owned farms. Clothes and furniture were also produced locally. Now that production and distribution have been spread all over the globe, events far away directly impact the US economy, and sometimes politicians feel pressure to use military threats, or responses, to protect American corporate interests (repackaged as “national security”).
So, too, US dependency on petroleum did not exist in the 1920s or dependency on rare earth metals in the 1980s. These are problems created by the decisions of corporations to introduce technologies that offered some conveniences, but at the price of extreme dependency of citizens on technology, which has generated large corporate profits.
The relocation of American manufacturing overseas also means that the only employment available in many regions, especially rural areas, is as police officers, guards at prisons, soldiers, or other positions in the military, police, or surveillance system. These days, security and the military are the only parts of the government budget that are growing.
The last decade has seen employment in defense surge by 40%, reaching 1.4% of the total employment base. In 2022-2023 alone the workforce expanded by 4.8% in contrast to an average of 1.7%.
No politician can oppose the increase in the military budget because, although constant foreign wars do great damage to the economy as a whole, the military has become the only part of government that increases opportunities for employment locally.
The US economy is increasingly controlled by a small number of rich families. The wages of American workers have been reduced, and the costs of living greatly increased for the profit of the few. The unprecedented concentration of wealth in the hands of a group of oligarchs has changed everything. This restructuring of society may not seem to be military in nature, but it pushes the United States toward a military economy.
The End of the Welfare State
The disposable income of workers increased beginning in the 1940s because of the redistribution of wealth forced by the reforms of the New Deal. These reforms also allowed for corporations to make enormous profits after the 1950s by selling consumer products to working people who had the disposable income to purchase them. From the 1960s on, consumption, growth, and the stock market became the primary tools for assessing the health of the economy.
Particularly from the 1970s on, this system effectively funneled wealth from working people to the wealthiest. But today consumption by workers, the middle class, and even the upper-middle class is no longer sufficient to generate profits for corporations because the people cannot spend any more. Banks have been forced to look for some other source of profit to pay off their debts. One direction they looked has been the military. Military spending creates steady demand that is not tied to market conditions, or economic booms and busts. It is funded by the people through taxes, or through the inflation created by the deficit spending that funds military expenditures.
The increase in military spending is a policy choice; it is the only way to avoid economic collapse. It must be justified by threats from China, Russia, and Iran, or terrorism. Intelligence agencies responding to the demands of banks to do everything they can to create trouble with those countries.
The true three branches of government are the politicians, the bankers, and the generals.
Companies like Oracle, Palantir, Google, and Amazon not only grow fat like ticks feeding on the military and intelligence budgets, they are merging with banks and using their control of the IT systems that power banks as a means to seize control of money itself through digitalization of the dollar, or the introduction of cryptocurrencies.
One of the most powerful billionaires, Larry Ellison, has launched a campaign to dominate media through the control of social media, entertainment, and news broadcasting. The Trump administration forced TikTok’s Chinese owner ByteDance to turn over its operations in the United States to a consortium headed by Ellison’s company Oracle in December 2025. Oracle grew to global influence as a major contractor for the CIA, and Ellison is a strong Trump supporter.
Since Ellison’s son David was installed as CEO in August 2025 of the new entertainment conglomerate Paramount Skydance—the merger of Paramount Global, Skydance Media, and National Amusements—father and son have been raising enormous funds for a hostile takeover of Warner Brothers that would give them unprecedented control over entertainment and journalism in the United States. Already CBS, under Ellison rule, has cancelled at the last minute a "60 Minutes" report on the notorious El Salvadorian prison CECOT.
These IT firms made those billions by taking out massive loans that they then used to buy back their own stock. They have nothing but debt and money in digital form. War, the threat of war, the buildup for war, is what keeps them going.
Impact on Governance
The United States government is a republic consisting of three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The three branches complement each other, and they also regulate and balance out each other. This system ensures that power is not concentrated in any one place.
That was a long time ago. How does politics really work today?
There are three real branches of government today, and they are quite different than those described in the Constitution. The true three branches of government are the politicians, the bankers, and the generals. They are the ultimate powers behind the government, and they balance each other out because they operate at different levels and have different strengths.
The concentration of wealth has almost eliminated the impact of citizens on policy.
The politicians are able to form temporary alliances among interest groups in business, finance, and government and negotiate among them to determine policy. The bankers control money and have the power of financial manipulation to shut down the entire economy, or the activities of opponents. The generals possess a chain of command that cannot be easily broken by exterior forces, even by money, and they have the ability to use force directly, without relying on a third party, to achieve their goals.
In a healthy society, where citizens actually play a role in politics, the politicians rise to the top because their primary mission is serving the needs of their clients, whether they are bankers, businessmen, generals, or other interest groups in the general population. Politicians can play the central role because they reflect the needs of citizens. As long as politicians can effectively meet the needs of the bankers, the generals, and the citizens, and keep the money flowing to them, the system remains stable.
If wealth is too concentrated, however, to the degree that the bankers can pay off everyone and gain complete control of the economy, then they rise to the top because bankers need only service a small number of the super rich to obtain absolute power. The politicians become their puppets, and the generals are paid off by the bankers. That is what the political system in the United States has become today.
A political system run by bankers, however, will encounter enormous problems over time because everything will be decided on the basis of short-term profits, and no one will do anything for the sake of others, or follow an ideal greater than personal interest. As a result, the foundations of government, and of society, will crumble. Eventually the government will collapse into anarchy, or it will drift into war as a means of generating profits and enforcing the bankers’ iron-fisted rule over the people.
At that historical moment, the generals rise to the top because they have a viable chain of command that continues to function even as the government fails, and because they speak the language of force and violence, which will become the only language that has authority once the legitimacy of politicians and bankers has been destroyed.
The concentration of wealth has almost eliminated the impact of citizens on policy. The finance-driven speculative economy has brought trust in government and business to a new low. As a result, the only politicians in the Democratic Party who are able to take on the Trump administration are all former military and intelligence, and the election of a former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger as governor of Virginia suggests that the “CIA Democrats” have become the driving force in an ideologically bankrupt Democratic Party.
The financial kings, the bankers and billionaires, need make only one little mistake in order for the chain of command to be handed over to the military in the United States. Although military officers may not want war as individuals, once the order goes down, the entire process, especially in light of the massive increase in drones and robots in the military, will be literally on automatic.
Keep ReadingShow Less
CBS Killing a '60 Minutes' CECOT Segment Shows Why We Must Back Independent Media
If we want to get responsible media that does its job in reporting on the deeds and misdeeds of the rich and powerful, we need to look to fundamentally restructure the media.
Dec 23, 2025
If anyone doubted that the rich would use their control of the media to push their agenda and silence dissent, CBS removed it with its decision to censor the scheduled "60 Minutes" broadcast on CECOT prison. CECOT is the notorious maximum-security prison in El Salvador where President Donald Trump has sent a number of the people that he has deported. There have been numerous accounts of torture and abusive treatment in the prison, which presumably would have been highlighted in the segment.
CBS, under its new ownership, decided that we shouldn’t see the "60 Minutes" segment, or at least not the one its team had prepared for broadcast last night. Apparently, they were worried it would offend the Trump administration.
According to a leaked account, Bari Weiss, the right-wing zealot that the new ownership put in charge of CBS News, decided that the program could not air without an interview with Stephan Miller, Trump’s deporter-in-chief. The producers of the show had apparently already reached out to the White House, as is their standard practice, but they refused to comment, presumably choosing to instead attack the broadcast as unfair and unbalanced after it ran.
Weiss is insisting that the program include an interview with Miller, giving him an effective veto over when and if the program airs. If we ever do see the segment, it will likely include other edits to make it more Trump friendly.
We do need to come up with ways to support independent media and not just complain about right-wing Trump sycophants taking over the media we have.
There can be a tendency to exaggerate the courage and independence of the pre-Trump media, but news shows like "60 Minutes" have done much great reporting over the years, breaking stories that the rich and powerful would prefer to see buried. This will no longer be the case.
Whining Is not an Effective Media Strategy, Nor Is Taxing the Rich
I have been getting regular fundraising notices from Robert Reich, whom I greatly respect, complaining about the takeover of the media by rich Trumpers. Reich is right, but the moral of his story is that we have to increase taxes on the rich.
While taxing the rich more is something we should do, along with taking away the patent and copyright monopolies that make many of them rich, and corrupt bankruptcy laws that give us private equity billionaires, along with a few other changes, we have to go much further to get back impartial media.
The huge gaps in wealth and income create an enormous power imbalance, and plausible changes in tax policy will do little to rectify the situation. If Elon Musk’s fortune was cut in half to $200 billion, he would still have a ridiculous amount of political power. The same applies to the rest of the crew of billionaires.
If we want to get responsible media that does its job in reporting on the deeds and misdeeds of the rich and powerful, plausible reductions in inequality (and how do we get those?) will not be sufficient. We need to look to fundamentally restructure the media.
When the right owns all the major news outlets and social media platforms, the idea that the truth will magically overcome their lies is not the sort of argument that can be taken seriously.
This is not as far-fetched a goal as it may sound. We will not get the current Congress, or even one with a Democratic majority in 2026, to take the lead in pushing for responsible media. But we can have initiatives at the state and local level to build up independent media that is not owned and controlled by the rich and very rich.
My preferred route is a system of individual tax credits, say $100 per person, to support the person’s favorite news outlet(s). This would be a credit, not a deduction, and fully refundable, so even the poorest person gets the same amount as Elon Musk. There could be different conditions attached to receiving the credit. In my view, the material supported should be freely available outside a paywall; but that’s something that could be decided by the state or local governments implementing the system.
The best model for those envisioning this system would be the charitable contribution tax deduction. The difference is that this would be a credit, with every person getting the same amount regardless of how much their income is.
We may already have a foot in the door on this. Katie Wilson, the newly elected progressive mayor of Seattle, is a big supporter of this system. She will have a full agenda as mayor, and faces a budget shortfall, but if stars align right, perhaps this system will be put in place.
Other states, like California and New York, have sought to support local media with a tax on Google and Meta, which have gobbled up much of the advertising revenue that had formerly supported news outlets. This money would then be used to subsidize subscriptions, an inferior approach in my view, but still a way to support independent media.
This system of individual tax credits may seem far away from the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars that support major news outlets like CBS or CNN. While it may be difficult to pay the multimillion-dollar salaries that top news anchors get through this system, it could support a huge amount of important journalism.
Many people will choose not to use their credits or use them to support slop or perhaps more right-wing MAGA screeds. But suppose 10% of the population, 25 million people, used their credits to support serious investigative reporting like what is done by outlets like ProPublica, the American Prospect, the New Republic, and on good days the New York Times.
That would provide $2.5 billion a year in revenue, roughly 100 times the budget of ProPublica. It could help to support hundreds of smaller outlets.
And even if most of this money goes to support local news outlets, they can band together to support national and international reporting. This has been the story of the Associated Press for 180 years.
The idea that a progressive stronghold, like Seattle, may adopt a modest proposal to support local news, may seem like chump change in a world where the mega rich tech oligarchs are throwing around billions to buy news outlets like cheap candy, but it is a hell of a lot more promising than whining. And it is not the only thing we can and should do to counter the corruption of the media by the Trump brigade.
It would be great to reform Section 230 so we don’t give Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg special protections that news and print outlets don’t enjoy. Obviously, this will not happen with a Republican Congress and Donald Trump in the White House, but we should at least highlight this utterly absurd subsidy that we give to these right-wing mega billionaires.
It would also be good if progressives stopped viewing it as gauche to file defamation lawsuits. That doesn’t mean absurd multibillion Trumpian lawsuits directed against every news outlet that criticizes someone, but it does mean suing to counter the damage of outright lies, such as the ones now being promoted against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
I know the standard line is that we counter lies with more speech; but save that for the kindergarten class. When the right owns all the major news outlets and social media platforms, the idea that the truth will magically overcome their lies is not the sort of argument that can be taken seriously.
Anyhow, that is a longer story. But we do need to come up with ways to support independent media and not just complain about right-wing Trump sycophants taking over the media we have. My scheme is on the table. Let’s hear others.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular