The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@zpleat
Maria Bartiromo

Fox News Ignores $500B IRS Loss That Dwarfs DOGE 'Savings'

Fox News and Fox Business have seemingly ignored bombshell reporting from The Washington Post detailing how disruptions at the Internal Revenue Service created by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency may result in the loss of half a trillion dollars of federal tax revenue this year.

This roughly $500 billion loss — which would represent nearly 10 percent of expected tax revenue to be gathered by the IRS by the April 15 tax filing deadline — dwarfs the alleged savings generated by DOGE from the firing of federal workers, closing of offices and agencies, and the cancellation of government contracts, which Fox personalities have enthusiastically promoted.

Fox’s refusal to inform viewers about how DOGE has crippled the IRS comes as no surprise given the network’s long track record of demagoguing against the agency.

Trump-driven IRS turmoil may cost 10 percent of federal revenue, which Fox ignored

In a March 22 story, The Washington Post reported that “staff cuts and disruptions related to the U.S. DOGE Service have officials bracing for a sharp loss of revenue” of up to a 10 percent decrease in federal tax receipts, a shortfall of over $500 billion. From the story:

Senior tax officials are bracing for a sharp drop in revenue collected this spring, as an increasing number of individuals and businesses spurn filing their taxes or attempt to skip paying balances owed to the Internal Revenue Service, according to three people with knowledge of tax projections.

Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline compared with 2024, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic data. That would amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue; the IRS collected $5.1 trillion last year. For context, the U.S. government spent $825 billion on the Defense Department in fiscal 2024.

…

The prediction, officials say, is directly tied to changing taxpayer behavior and President Donald Trump’s rapid demolition of parts of the IRS.

Fox has repeatedly promoted the comparatively meager DOGE savings reportedly totaling $130 billion as of March 28, a figure that reporting makes clear is hugely exaggerated. But according to a Media Matters review, Fox News has not covered this Post story showing a staggering loss in revenue due in part to DOGE. In a review of transcripts on Fox News and Fox Business from March 22 - 27, we found that Fox failed to report on the Post’s exclusive.

However, during this period, Fox Business anchor Liz Claman did acknowledge the importance of the IRS, saying: “I think we do need people at the IRS making sure people pay their taxes, because this country is not gonna run without tax revenue.”

Fox hyped DOGE’s supposed savings

Fox personalities have been eager to applaud DOGE’s efforts to upend much of the United States government, claiming the department is pursuing cost savings and efficiency.

  • Fox host Sean Hannity: “There’s $500 billion that was identified by Sen. Rand Paul … in previously approved spending that they believe they have the ability to cut. That's a big number.” Hannity continued, “We're getting into the trillions of dollars which was the goal originally.” [Fox News, Hannity, 3/5/25]
  • Fox host Jesse Watters celebrated “federal agencies getting DOGEd.” Watters emphasized that the DOGE “whiz kids” are “already saving a billion bucks a day.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 2/4/25]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham: “DOGE ends the gravy train.” Ingraham asked, “Are there any sane Democrats left in Washington? Do any of them care about the billions being stolen from the U.S. taxpayers, stolen through waste, stolen through negligence, fraud, abuse?” Ingraham then celebrated an announcement of 167 contract cancellations. [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 2/14/25]
  • Fox & Friends hosts gushed over the supposed DOGE savings and supported a DOGE “dividend check” to Americans. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/20/25]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo celebrated that “DOGE has exposed so much wasteful spending” before suggesting “digging into Medicare and Medicaid.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 3/10/25]

Reports have shown DOGE’s savings are exaggerated

  • PBS’ News Hour: DOGE “has posted what it calls a wall of receipts on its Web site that claims it has saved billions by cutting certain federal contracts. But reports and government documents prove that many of these so-called savings are either misleading or incorrect.” PBS White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López explained: “As The New York Times first reported, five of DOGE's biggest contracts that they say have resulted in savings ended up being deleted from that wall of receipts after outlets pointed out that there were errors. And some of the biggest errors in savings are, as CBS first reported, a USAID contract for $650 million that was listed three times, as The Intercept first reported, a Social Security contract listed as $232 million, instead of $560,000, and an ICE contract that DOGE listed as $8 billion, when, in reality, it was $8 million.” [PBS, News Hour, 2/26/25]
  • AP: “Nearly 40% of the federal contracts that President Donald Trump’s administration claims to have canceled as part of its signature cost-cutting program aren’t expected to save the government any money.” A February analysis by The Associated Press found that “more than one-third of the contract cancellations, 794 in all, are expected to yield no savings.” [The Associated Press, 2/25/25]
  • Gizmodo: “DOGE Just Keeps Deleting Its ‘Savings.’” Gizmodo reported on March 3 that DOGE “has repeatedly had to pull examples of so-called savings down after it was revealed that it actually didn’t save taxpayers anything.” According to the article, DOGE “changed or removed more than 40% of the more than 1,000 contracts it claimed to have canceled over the previous week, according to the New York Times. Included in that overnight alteration was the outright removal of five of the seven largest contracts it claimed to have cut.” [Gizmodo, 3/3/25]
  • NY Times: DOGE removed identifying information from its website to make its claimed savings harder to fact-check, before reversing course. The New York Times reported that DOGE “began making its new mistakes harder to find” following news outlets’ reporting on the group’s “error-filled data that inflated its success at saving taxpayer money.” The Times reported that DOGE began posting claims of new cuts without identifying information, and that it later removed the identifying information from the publicly available source code, making its claims nearly impossible to verify. The Times reported in a later story that DOGE “added some of the missing details,” allowing the public to check its claims of savings again. [The New York Times, 3/13/25, 3/18/25]

Fox has long demagogued against the IRS

  • Fox pushed a lie about increased IRS funding in the Inflation Reduction Act hundreds of times. In August 2022, Fox promoted the false claim that the IRA added 87,000 employees to the IRS at least 203 times, and House Republicans used these lies to justify a push to cut billions in enforcement funding from the agency. Some of the funding was successfully used to collect taxes owed by the richest Americans who otherwise may not have paid what they owed. [Media Matters, 6/7/24]
  • Fox also pushed unhinged demagoguery about the extra IRS funding, claiming that it would fund a militia to “hunt down and kill middle class taxpayers.” Then-Fox host Tucker Carlson claimed, “They're hiring another 87,000 armed IRS agents just to make sure that you obey. Got it?” Others on Fox described the potential wave of IRS hiring as an “economic, financial militia against regular people” deployed by those who “want to control you”; a “new army”; a “new Gestapo” Biden will use in an “abusive, corrupt manner”; “a Praetorian Guard that will be unleashed again” to “grab all the cash they can by any means necessary”; and “part of an orchestrated campaign to target Americans and have the federal government be at war with those Americans.” [Media Matters, 8/16/22]
  • During the Obama administration, Fox manufactured a scandal over the IRS scrutinizing political nonprofits. Before it came out that the IRS had also investigated progressive-aligned nonprofit organizations, Fox worked in concert with Republican politicians in an attempt to manufacture a scandal about the IRS supposedly targeting conservative nonprofits. [Media Matters, 8/20/13]

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network for either of the terms “IRS” or “Internal Revenue Service” from March 22, 2025, when The Washington Post published its exclusive reporting that tax revenues could drop by 10% compared to 2024, through March 27, 2025.We timed segments, which we defined as instances when the possible IRS revenue shortfall was the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the possible shortfall. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the possible shortfall with one another.We did not time passing mentions, which we defined as instances when a single speaker in a segment on another topic mentioned the possible IRS shortfall without another speaker engaging with the comment, or teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about the possible shortfall scheduled to air later in the broadcast.We rounded all times to the nearest minute.

Why Would Ted Cruz Try To Cripple A Major Anti-Bribery Statute?

Why Would Ted Cruz Try To Cripple A Major Anti-Bribery Statute?

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Fox Business Blames Media For Popular Rejection Of Trump Tariffs

Fox Business Blames Media For Popular Rejection Of Trump Tariffs

As President Donald Trump’s erratic tariff policies continue to take shape, multiple public opinion, consumer sentiment, and manufacturer and business surveys show that Americans generally disapprove of them. These surveys also show that Americans expect that the tariffs will raise prices and weaken the economy. With public support for Trump's economic interventions slipping, Fox Business has pivoted to attacking mainstream media coverage of Trump’s tariffs — even as experts warn that his policies will grievously harm the U.S. economy.

Surveys show widespread disapproval over Trump’s handling of tariffs and trade

  • A Fox News poll found that a majority of voters oppose tariffs on Canada (61 percent) and Mexico (56 percent). Fox News’ write-up of its poll stated that tariffs “are viewed mostly through a negative lens, with voters thinking they are more likely to harm the U.S. economy (53 percent harm vs. 28 percent help) and make products more expensive (69 percent more vs.sefven percent less).” [Fox News, 3/20/25]
  • An Echelon Insights poll found that when Americans were told that tariffs increased prices, 55 percent opposed them. [Twitter/X, 3/19/25]
  • A Morning Consult poll found 48 percent of voters oppose Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the same plurality disapprove of his tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. [Morning Consult, 3/19/25]
  • Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell said “both market- and survey-based measures” are showing that “some near-term measures of inflation expectations have recently moved up,” with respondents “mentioning tariffs as a driving factor.” In Powell’s March 19 remarks, he also repeatedly used the phrase “tariff inflation” when describing how the Fed will account for price disruptions resulting from Trump’s tariff policies. [U.S. Federal Reserve, 3/19/25]
  • Cato Institute: Trump’s tariffs are causing an increase in small business’ uncertainty. A Cato Institute article explained: “The administration’s basket case approach to tariffs and global trade is fueling economic uncertainty. According to the February survey from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), its uncertainty index rose to its second-highest recorded reading.” The article additionally displayed a chart from the FedEx Small Business Trade Index which “shows that American small businesses are highly dependent on imports.” [Cato Institute, 3/14/25]
  • Reuters: The March University of Michigan consumer survey showed that “U.S. consumer sentiment plunged to a nearly 2-1/2-year low in March and inflation expectations soared amid worries that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, which have ignited a trade war, would boost prices and undercut the economy.” Reuters reported that this result “mirrors similar concerns in some business surveys” and added: “The uncertainty created by Trump's on- and off-again tariffs as well as an escalation in trade tensions risks derailing the economic expansion.” [Reuters, 3/14/25]
  • A Quinnipiac poll showed that 56 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of trade with Mexico, and 58 percent disapprove of his handling of trade with Canada. Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said: “Icy exchanges on tariffs chill a longstanding friendship and voters make it clear they feel that's no way to treat our neighbors to the north.” [Quinnipiac University, 3/13/25]
  • A CNN poll showed that 61 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs. [CNN, 3/12/25]
  • The first quarter 2025 National Association of Manufacturers outlook survey “reveals growing concerns over trade uncertainties and increased raw material costs.” According to the survey, “Trade uncertainties surged to the top of manufacturers’ challenges, cited by 76.2 percent of respondents, jumping 20 percentage points from Q4 2024 and 40 percentage points from Q3 of last year. Increased raw material costs came in second, cited by 62.3 percent of respondents.” [National Association of Manufacturers, 3/6/25]
  • The February Institute for Supply Management survey showed that “worries about duties on imports dominated commentary from manufacturers.” Reuters’ report on the survey further explained that “a measure of prices at the factory gate jumped to nearly a three-year high and it took longer for materials to be delivered, suggesting that tariffs on imports could soon undercut production.” [Reuters, 3/3/25]
  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ February Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey showed multiple complaints from manufacturers about tariffs. One business replied that “tariff threats and uncertainty are extremely disruptive.” Another explained that it has “lost business opportunities for production of goods that goes to other countries as a result of tariffs.” Another business cited tariff changes to announce its likely closure. Many other businesses expressed concerns about Trump’s tariffs as well. [Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2/24/25]
  • A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 59 percent of Americans opposed Trump’s tariffs on Canada and 56 percent opposed his tariffs on Mexico. [Ipsos, February 2025]

Fox Business repeatedly attacked media coverage of Trump’s tariffs

  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “The media lost its collective mind and began peppering Powell with nonstop questions about tariffs.” Payne added that the media had waged a “horrific campaign of horror” against tariffs. [Fox Business, Making Money, 3/20/25]
  • Payne: “The media has gone to war with President Trump and made tariffs the scariest thing in the world.” Payne added that widespread concern over tariffs is “a media creation,” and declared that “we have never had this much negative news associated with the economy outside of COVID, the peak of COVID.” [Fox News, America Reports, 3/18/25
  • Fox Business host Dagen McDowell: “There’s this media minion fixation on tariffs to foment fear, because they’re panic-peddlers at heart.” [Fox Business, The Big Money Show, 3/20/25]
  • McDowell: “All the media minion chicken scratchers can do is try and frighten the American people and report … the tariffs tantrums over and over and over again.” [Fox Business, The Bottom Line, 3/18/25]
  • Fox Business host and former Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow: “This whole business about tariffs and the liberal media, ‘tariffs are inflationary, tariffs are recessionary,’ I think it’s all hogwash.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 3/20/25]
  • Kudlow: “The Wall Street and liberal media hysteria over inflationary tariffs is a lot of hoo-ha.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 3/19/25]
  • Kudlow: “The media is trying desperately to use tariffs to hammer Trump and say his policies are a failure.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 3/19/25]

Experts have warned that Trump’s tariffs will hurt the economy


  • The Tax Foundation’s March 12 estimate of Trump’s various tariff policies found that they will “reduce US GDP by 0.4 percent and hours worked by 309,000 full-time equivalent jobs, before accounting for foreign retaliation.” These figures do not account for Trump’s separately announced so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, tariffs on the European Union, automobiles, agricultural products, or semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. [Tax Foundation, accessed 3/21/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab analysis of tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico found that Trump’s policies would raise prices by “1.0-1.2%, the equivalent of an average per household consumer loss of $1,600–2,000 in 2024$.” The analysis also found that “real GDP growth is 0.6 lower in 2025. In the long-run, the US economy is persistently 0.3-0.4% smaller, the equivalent of $80-110 billion annually in 2024$.” [The Budget Lab, 3/3/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab director of economics Ernie Tedeschi on Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs: Inflation will rise “1.7-2.1% depending on foreign retaliation and assuming the Fed doesn't react. That's the equivalent of an annual consumer loss averaging $2,700-$3,400 per household in 2024$.” The full study from The Budget Lab additionally explains that if American consumers substitute items for the higher prices, “the effect on prices settles somewhat, to 1.5-1.6%, still a $2,400-$2,600 average consumer loss per household.” [Twitter/X, 2/18/25; The Budget Lab, 2/18/25]
  • Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: The higher inflation rate from Trump’s tariffs means “central banks will raise interest rates,” possibly “leading to the worst of possible outcomes – interest rates going up with stagflation, interest rates going up in the face of a weak economy.” [The Guardian, 1/31/25]
  • Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi: Trump’s tariffs “will result in higher prices for the things that we import. … It will add to inflationary pressures.” [CNN, 1/31/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

MAGA Media Knew Trump Would Wreak Economic Havoc --- And Now He Is

MAGA Media Knew Trump Would Wreak Economic Havoc --- And Now He Is

For months, MAGA sycophants and right-wing media personalities have been warning that President Donald Trump’s agenda to gut the federal government and institute widespread tariffs could devastate the economy, which they attempted to spin as an important step to restoring the balance supposedly missing from the strong economy Trump inherited from the Biden administration.

With many of Trump’s policies going into effect or scheduled to begin soon, economists, analysts, and news organizations are already pointing to new indicators of a pullback in consumer spending, weak consumer confidence, worsening inflation expectations, and higher than expected weekly jobless claims as evidence that the promised economic mayhem is already beginning.

Economists and news outlets say new economic indicators show economic trouble ahead

  • University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers: Census Bureau data shows that “Americans responded (sharply!) to the Trump tariffs *before* they were even imposed” by importing extra goods to avoid “paying the higher prices that would occur when he was in office.” Wolfers added: “This also gives you a sense of who to blame for somewhat higher inflation in January. No, he wasn't in office yet. But suppliers know buyers need to buy ahead of future tariff-afflicted price hikes, and so likely felt little pressure to offer their usual discounts.” [Bluesky, 2/28/25, 2/28/25]
  • University of California, Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein: “It seems almost unavoidable at this point that we are headed for a deep, deep recession” due to Trump’s policies. Rothstein wrote: “Just based on 200K+ federal firings & pullback of contracts, the March employment report (to be released April 4) seems certain to show bigger job losses than any month ever outside of a few in 2008-9 and 2020.” [Bluesky, 2/18/25]
  • Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long, citing new data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, wrote: “Warning sign for the economy: Big drop in consumer spending in January. Personal consumption expenditures *decreased* 0.2%.” Long added: “Look at the categories with big drops -- car parts, recreational stuff, appliances, furniture, clothing -- a lot of this is ‘nice to haves’ that people cut first when times get tough.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research senior economist Dean Baker noted that “January had the largest drop in consumption spending in four years,” and called it a “recession-type drop in spending.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25, 2/28/25]
  • Former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jared Bernstein: The drop in consumer spending is “concerning and consistent with consumer angst re tariffs, uncertainty.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities senior director for federal fiscal policy Brendan Duke on the drop in consumer spending: “Do wonder if a big economic effect of the Trump Administration's attacks on federal employees and contractors is that they and their families are pulling back on consumer spending because they are *worried* about losing their jobs even if they haven't lost them yet.” [Twitter/X, 2/28/25]
  • Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman on the drop in consumer spending: “Consumers already seem worried about policy madness, and they ain't seen nothing yet.” [Bluesky, 2/28/25]
  • According to two surveys, consumer confidence has slumped to a level that “usually signals a recession ahead.” Two consumer confidence surveys for February, released just days apart, indicated that public perceptions of the economy have worsened significantly since Trump took office, with fears of “tariff-induced price increases” dragging down consumer sentiment in a survey published by the University of Michigan, and nagging worries about “income, business, and labor market conditions” driving down sentiment in a survey published by The Conference Board. Both surveys were weaker than economists had expected, with the University of Michigan’s index registering the highest inflation expectations since 2023, and the Conference Board’s survey falling to a level that “usually signals a recession ahead.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/21/25; The Conference Board, 2/25/25]
  • CNN: “The stock market had its worst week of Trump’s presidency – the Dow lost 1,200 points over the course of Thursday and Friday” as “investors grew fearful that the weakening consumer sentiment could lead to a pullback in Americans’ shopping habits.” CNN also quoted FWDBonds chief economist Chris Rupkey telling investors, “The public’s fears have soared in just the last two weeks showing the blizzard of changes coming from the president’s desk have spilled over the line between pro-growth into the realm of pro-inflation. … Once inflation expectations start moving higher it is only a matter of time before actual inflation takes off.” [CNN, 2/24/25]
  • CNBC: “Weekly jobless claims jump to 242,000, more than expected in latest sign of economic softening.” On February 27, CNBC reported that “jobless claims for the week ended Feb. 22 totaled a seasonally adjusted 242,000, up 22,000 from the previous week’s revised level and higher than the Dow Jones estimate for 225,000.” CNBC explained that “the level of claims matched the highest since early October 2024 and comes amid questions over broader economic growth and worrying signs in recent consumer sentiment surveys” and amid Trump “taking aggressive measures to reduce the federal workforce.” [CNBC, 2/27/25]
  • Bloomberg: “Trump Risks American Consumer Backlash Over Tariffs, Poll Shows.” Bloomberg reported that a Harris Poll found that “almost 60% of US adults expect Trump’s tariffs will lead to higher prices,” and “44% say the levies are likely to be bad for the US economy.” [Bloomberg, 2/27/25]
  • CNBC: “The Federal Reserve’s favorite recession indicator is flashing a danger sign again.” CNBC reported: “The 10-year Treasury yield passed below that of the 3-month note in trading Wednesday. In market lingo, that’s known as an ‘inverted yield curve,’ and it’s had a sterling prediction record over a 12- to 18-month timeframe for downturns going back decades.” [CNBC, 2/26/25]

Trump supporters have been warning that his agenda calls for “hardship”

  • Elon Musk said during an October 25 telephone town hall that Trump’s agenda “to reduce spending to live within our means … necessarily involves some temporary hardship.” Since then, Musk has become the embodiment of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is reportedly responsible for many federal firings and spending freezes. [The New York Times, 10/29/24; The Associated Press, 2/21/25]
  • Musk later agreed with an X user who wrote that there will be an “initial severe overreaction in the economy” and that the “market will tumble” as Trump enacts his agenda. Musk replied on October 29, “Sounds about right.” [The New York Times, 10/29/24]
  • Fox News host Laura Ingraham: Trump’s agenda will be “tough for the economy. There is no doubt about it.” Ingraham added: “People have to get, as my father would have said, real work, real jobs. People are going to have to get jobs and they're going to be scrambling.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 11/20/24]
  • Podcaster Jason Calacanis: “DOGE is going to require collective sacrifice.” He wrote: “Getting Americans & their representatives to decline funding the government has ALREADY promised them, and that they fought hard to get, is going to be an extremely difficult task.” [Twitter/X, 11/22/24; Vox, 11/12/22]
  • Then-Fox contributor Tammy Bruce (now a government spokesperson): People are going to lose their jobs, “and it's going to be good, because yes, more jobs will be created in the private sector for them.” [Fox News, Hannity, 12/5/24]
  • Fox host Todd Piro: “Now, admittedly, we're going to have some tariffs, and that's going to raise prices. But the overall impact on the economy, hopefully, when Trump takes over, will make people feel better. And then when people feel better, the economy is better.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 12/11/24]
  • Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore on government jobs: “I guarantee you that number is going to be down next month, because we’re already seeing the Trump administration really shred jobs in the government sector.” [Media Matters, 2/7/25]
  • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “States are going to have a lot of their own sort of comeuppance, if you will” from the Trump administration cutting spending. Payne also claimed the Biden administration “tried to goose these numbers” with “a lot of money [that] was parceled out to states.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 2/7/25]
  • Faulkner on DOGE gutting the federal government: “There will be some fallout, because people will be losing their jobs.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 2/18/25]
  • MAGA radio host Dan Bongino: People need to “take it on the chin” and “sacrifice for a little bit” for Trump’s policies. Bongino said: “We’re just asking you to sacrifice for a little bit for the long-term prosperity of the United States. Now’s the time. … We’re all going to take it on the chin a little bit. Rich guys, poor guys, middle class guys, someone’s going to lose their tax cut. It is time to take it on the chin. We have to fix this thing now, not tomorrow.” [The Dan Bongino Show, 2/18/25]
  • Payne suggested it could be positive if Trump creates a recession. After a guest pointed out that President Ronald Reagan “came into office in 1981, that he slashed federal head count and actually put the economy back into the double dip recession of 1980 and 1981,” Payne responded: “I agree with you 1,000% that when you change something that's like this, lot of cash floating around, maybe there's a little temporary pain. We also end up calling it investing.” [Fox Business, Making Money, 2/26/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

'Wall Street Journal' Blames Trump For Risking Auto Industry 'Bloodbath'

'Wall Street Journal' Blames Trump For Risking Auto Industry 'Bloodbath'

The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board, fresh off calling out President Donald Trump for backing down for minor concessions when he delayed his announced tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, is now explaining to Trump that implementing his tariff vision would devastate the U.S. auto industry.

Industry and economic analysts agree that Trump’s various proposed tariffs would greatly harm the U.S. auto industry, after Trump dubiously warned during the 2024 presidential election of a “bloodbath” in the industry if he wasn’t elected.

Trump warned of a “bloodbath” in the auto industry if he lost the election

In March 2024, Trump sparked a controversy by saying during a campaign rally: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

Trump’s campaign and media defenders claimed that Trump’s comment was about the auto industry rather than another instance of his violent rhetoric.

Even then, Trump was lying. The auto industry was in excellent shape during the Biden administration. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that more people were employed in auto manufacturing late in the Biden administration than at any time since December 2006, with a peak of about 1.03 million Americans employed in the industry under Biden. BLS data also showed that wages throughout the auto industry reached record highs under Biden.

Additionally, Trump’s first-term steel tariffs “hampered the U.S. auto industry, sparking the loss of thousands of jobs,” according to PolitiFact.

A Wall Street Journal editorial warned “Trump’s tariffs will punish Michigan”

On February 25, the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote of a new study that shows how Trump’s tariffs will “damage the U.S. car industry, even as the economy slows and uncertainty spreads.” The Journal continued: “If the goal is to harm U.S. auto workers and Republican prospects in Michigan, then by all means go ahead, Mr. President.” According to the editorial, the study from the Anderson Economic Group found that Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports would cause vehicle prices to soar:

Start with auto prices. The study estimates that a 25% tariff on the U.S. neighbors would increase the cost of a full-size SUV assembled in North America by $9,000 and a pickup truck by $8,000. The cost of an electric-vehicle cross-over would increase by $12,200. Canada is the biggest supplier to the U.S. of nickel, a key critical mineral in lithium-ion batteries.
…
Mr. Trump says tariffs will force auto makers to make more cars in the U.S. Not likely, and that would take time in any case. Domestic demand for some vehicle models—especially sedans—isn’t sufficient to justify the cost of building new U.S. factories. Auto makers will have to absorb the tariff, increase prices on cars, or stop selling some models because they are too expensive.

The Journal also wrote that “U.S. auto workers will pay, too, if auto sales drop as a result of higher prices.”

In response, Trump ranted about the Journal in general and this editorial in particular on Truth Social, writing:

I don’t understand The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, never have. They come to my aid when I least expect it, sometimes strongly, and I greatly appreciate that — Very meaningful! But then they come out with some real CLINKERS, like today’s Editorial that my Auto Tariffs will hurt the Michigan Automobile Business. They are sooo WRONG, in fact, it is just the opposite.

Experts agree Trump’s tariffs will hurt the industry and raise car prices

Trump has announced multiple tariffs that would drastically affect the auto industry.

Trump’s 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico would, according to the Cato Institute, “harm US automotive operations and workers, as well as American car consumers” because of the integration of both countries in the U.S. auto market.

Next to be announced were 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which of course are used car manufacturing. Lastly, Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on all automobiles (along with pharmaceuticals and computer chips) imported into the country.

Experts have made clear that these tariffs, either separately or together, would have devastating effects on the U.S. auto industry.

  • Bloomberg: Ford CEO Jim Farley warned that Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico alone would “blow a hole” in and be “devastating” to the U.S. auto industry. [Bloomberg, 2/11/25]
  • Bloomberg: Tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports could raise new-car prices by $3,000. Bloomberg also reported that the tariffs “could add $60 billion in costs to the sector, according to consultant AlixPartners,” much of which would be “passed on to consumers, which could see new-vehicle prices rise by about $3,000, Wolfe analysts have estimated.” [Bloomberg, 2/11/25]
  • AP: “President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel imports … could wreak havoc on American auto manufacturing, industry leaders say.” AutoForecast Solutions analyst Sam Fiorani told The Associated Press that “raising the price of what is among the most important components of the vehicle is only going to raise the price of an already expensive product.” [The Associated Press, 2/11/25]
  • CNN: “Consumers are expected to feel most of the burn by the new import taxes on automobiles, as prices of cars could jump by thousands of dollars, experts have warned.” CNN additionally reported that “nearly half of vehicle sales in the US last year, including cars and light trucks, were imported from foreign countries.” [CNN, 2/19/25]
  • Quartz: “A 25% duty on the average $25,000 cost of a vehicle imported from Mexico and Canada would add $6,250 in costs, S&P Global Mobility said.” Quartz added: “Cars that have parts imported from either country — such as a Ford F-series pickup with a Canadian engine — would also see a price increase.” [Quartz, 2/26/25]
  • Quartz: Anderson Economic Group estimates that Trump’s “announced duties on imports of aluminum and steel would add another $250 to $800 per gas-powered vehicle and up to $2,500 on EVs” and stated that it was “inevitable” that there would be job cuts. Additionally, according to Quartz, the group’s study showed “vehicles made in Europe and Asia would see a $800 to $1,600 price hike.” [Quartz, 2/26/25]
  • Yale’s Budget Lab: Trump’s 25 percent tariff on automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and computer chips would mean “average automobile and pharmaceutical prices would rise 8.5-10.5 percent, accounting for the tariffs themselves, potential dollar appreciation, and domestic price hikes.” [The Budget Lab, 2/25/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

As Prices Rise, Fox Hosts Struggle To Hide Trump's Inflation Fail

As Prices Rise, Fox Hosts Struggle To Hide Trump's Inflation Fail

Donald Trump’s supporters in right-wing media, particularly at Fox News, repeatedly hyped his oft-repeated campaign promise to quickly bring down consumer prices, and especially the cost of groceries, if he was reelected.

These promises included immediate price decreases, with Trump saying during the campaign, “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on day one,” and, “Prices will come down. … They’ll come down fast.”

But after Trump took office, prices not only didn’t come down, they continued rising for many people and businesses. News organizations swiftly contrasted Trump’s lofty promises of immediate relief with the reality that he hasn’t been keeping those promises. The Trump administration’s illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized spending and his announcements of universal tariffs, nation-specific tariffs, and product-specific tariffs are already leading to higher costs and price hikes for Americans and are reportedly leading consumers to expect further price increases.

And as Trump’s inflationary policies begin to take effect, both the Trump administration and Fox figures have begun providing excuses for why Trump failed in his promise to “immediately bring prices down.”

Fox repeatedly promoted Trump’s promise of lower prices if he was reelected

  • During a phone interview, Fox & Friends co-host Lawrence Jones gushed over Trump’s focus on lowering prices. During a March 5, 2024, phone interview with Trump, Fox & Friends co-host Lawrence Jones said: “Mr. President, a lot of people believe that you’re at your best when you’re fighting for the American people. And we just heard in the diners, we heard immigration, but the other top issue is the economy. What are you going to do to give us some relief when it comes to this inflation?” Trump responded by talking about oil production and saying “energy’s going to bring it all down.” [Media Matters, 3/5/24]
  • Fox host Sandra Smith: Trump “had me at let’s address this inflation nightmare.” This followed a clip of Trump’s Republican National Convention speech where he said, “I make this pledge to the great people of America: I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately." [Fox News, The Five, 7/19/24]
  • Fox News host Sean Hannity: Voting for Trump will result in “next to zero inflation, lower gas prices and energy prices.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 8/22/24]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham: “The debate is over. Trump wins on the issues that matter most: inflation, economy, and border security. Don't let the regime media fool you!” [Twitter/X, 9/24/24]
  • Hannity: Because of Trump’s victory, “we're gonna pay lower prices in the grocery store, pay a lot less for gasoline.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 11/7/24]
  • Fox Business host Taylor Riggs said Scott Bessent’s nomination as treasury secretary would lead to “lower prices, maybe immediately.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 11/26/24]
  • Then-Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt on Fox & Friends said Trump “is going to get to work to day one ... to bring down the cost of living and energy in the country” and will “deliver on that promise.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/6/25]
  • Fox guest Ari Fleischer on Trump promising to lower prices: “The real answer is he’s going to accomplish it first off because of one phone call, his first phone call to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Just watch, Laura — they’re going to increase oil production.” Fleischer added: “The price of energy is going to come down.” (OPEC+ announced it would not increase oil production more than it already planned to after Trump called on the group to lower oil prices.) [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 1/27/25; Oilprice.com, 2/12/25]

Fox is now providing excuses for Trump not meeting his pledge to immediately lower prices

  • A guest on Fox Business said that the “data is going to come out more depressed now that the Trump administration is in” and answered affirmatively when anchor Maria Martiromo asked if that’s because the Biden administration was “cooking the books.” The panel cited routine revisions to jobs estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which led to conspiracy theorizing from right-wing media. [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 1/30/25; Media Matters, 8/21/24]
  • Fox guest Stephen Moore preemptively blamed Biden for an expected increase in prices. On America Reports, Moore said: “The problem for Trump is that, in the last few months that Biden was president, we saw inflation rising again, Sandra. I think this next report we get out later this week is going to show a pretty significant bump in prices. And obviously Trump wasn't even in office when that happened, so it will take, I think, about, you know, three to six months to start seeing the effect of Trump's policies on inflation.” [Fox News, America Reports, 2/10/25]
  • Fox anchor Dana Perino on prices continuing to rise: “People realize that Joe Biden caused the inflation and then ignored it.” Perino continued: “So I think that people look at that and say come on, sit down, and give President Trump a little bit of time. It's been three weeks.” [Fox News, The Five, 2/10/25]
  • Fox Business host Jackie DeAngelis complained that expecting immediate price decreases (like Trump promised) “isn’t necessarily possible or rational.” [Fox Business, The Big Money Show, 2/12/25]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham complained that Democrats are calling out Trump for not immediately lowering prices like he promised. Ingraham said: “President Trump hasn't been in basically a month or so and yet the Democrats are making it seem like there should be monumental change on the economy right away, immediately.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 2/12/25]
  • Fox Business anchor David Asman: “What Donald Trump has inherited is much worse than the numbers that we were looking at before. It makes a lot of people wonder whether those numbers were cooked.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 2/13/25]
  • Fox Business guest Jacob Sonenshine of Barron’s said an additional percentage point of inflation from Trump’s tariffs “doesn’t really matter” because “the market’s going to power right through it.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 2/13/25]
  • The Five co-host Jeanine Pirro: “Don't you think it's rather ridiculous for the Democrats to be complaining, ‘It's just four weeks, and the economy isn't better.’” She added: “It's just four weeks and eggs haven't come down. How ridiculous is that?” Co-host Kayleigh McEnany responded: “Totally ridiculous.” [Fox News, The Five, 2/21/25]

News organizations report that Trump has abandoned his pledge to lower prices and pushed policies that would likely increase them

  • CNN: “Trump pledged to bring down food prices on Day One. Instead, eggs are getting more expensive.” CNN reported that egg prices continued to rise during the first week of the Trump administration as “Day One has turned into Day Seven,” and that Democratic lawmakers have complained that “despite a flurry of executive actions, Trump’s price-related promises have gone unfulfilled.” CNN additionally reported that “Trump’s frequent price-dropping pledges have long been countered by economists who have noted that broad-based price declines not only would be outright dangerous for an economy by creating a deflationary ‘doom loop,’ but, also, that they’d be improbable to achieve.” [CNN.com, 1/28/25]
  • AP reported that the Department of Agriculture predicts egg prices will “soar another 20 percent this year.” [The Associated Press, 2/18/25]
  • Politico: “Trump’s pledge to lower prices is already facing a reality test.” Politico noted that Trump’s various promises to lower prices face “practical limitations,” citing the soaring price of eggs, the problem with his pledge to increase oil production to a degree which oil companies aren’t likely to desire, and his “sweeping tariffs that could be placed on products from every U.S. trading partner, risking another uptick in costs.” [Politico, 1/29/25]
  • Reuters: “Trump tariffs to stoke US food inflation despite pledge to lower costs.” Reuters reported that economists said “U.S. consumers grappling with soaring prices for beef and eggs will face even higher costs for meat, vegetables and fruit if President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports,” even though Trump “pledged to bring down costs for ordinary Americans.” [Reuters, 1/31/25]
  • NPR: “Prices were a key issue in 2024, but Trump makes clear they're not his top priority.” NPR reported that in the beginning of the Trump administration, “one particular thing has been conspicuously absent: a focus on lowering prices. Trump's promises to bring down the cost of living were a big reason he was elected, but since taking office he has now twice said that's not his top priority.” [NPR, 2/1/25]
  • The Guardian: “Inflation picks up speed after Trump promised to ‘rapidly’ bring down prices.” The Guardian noted that “since his election victory last November, however, Trump has appeared to soften his pledge,” citing a December Time interview where he said that “it’s hard to bring things down once they’re up.” The Guardian additionally explained that “many economists have warned that Trump’s tariff strategy risks exacerbating inflation.” [The Guardian, 2/12/15]
  • NY Times: “With High Prices Persisting, Trump Tempers Tone on Slaying Inflation.” The New York Times reported that despite Trump’s pledge to lower prices on “Day 1,” his administration has “become more measured in how they discuss their efforts to tame inflation,” “downplaying the likelihood that consumer costs like groceries will decline anytime soon, reflecting the limited power that presidents have to control prices.” [The New York Times, 2/12/25]

Trump began walking back his pledge to immediately reduce prices even before taking office

  • In a December Time interview, Trump said of his pledge to bring down prices: “I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard.” Trump said this in response to the question, “If the prices of groceries don't come down, will your presidency be a failure?” [Time, 12/12/24]
  • Trump said twice that he prioritizes immigration over inflation. NPR reported that on the day of Trump’s inauguration, he told supporters: “They all said inflation was the No. 1 issue. I said, 'I disagree. I think people coming into our country from prisons and from mental institutions is a bigger issue for the people that I know.' And I made it my No. 1.” Days later, Trump reiterated that lowering prices was not his main concern, saying during a Republican congressional retreat: “I always felt the border was first. I talked about that much more so than I did inflation. I mean, inflation was terrible. I think it was the worst in the history of our country, but you can only talk about it so long.” [NPR, 2/1/25]
  • Vice President JD Vance also recently backtracked on Trump’s pledge to immediately lower prices, saying in an interview: “Prices are going to come down, but it’s going to take a little bit of time.” [CBS News, Face the Nation, 1/26/25]
  • Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt said when pressed on when prices would come down, “I don’t have a timeline.” [The New York Times, 2/12/25]
  • The NY Times reported that in a Fox interview, “Trump demurred when pressed about when families struggling with high prices would start to feel some relief.” The New York Times reported that Trump instead “suggested that his policies would make America a rich country, which would reduce the burden on consumers by, in theory, increasing their earnings.” [The New York Times, 2/12/25]

Many Americans are facing and expecting increased costs due to Trump’s actions

  • A Trump executive order to pause some federal spending led to surcharges on some Alabamans’ utility bills. [AL.com, 2/11/25]
  • Cato Institute vice president Scott Lincicome posted price increase notices from construction and appliance manufacturers in response to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports. [Twitter/X, 2/14/25, 2/14/25, 2/14/25]
  • Wall Street Journal: “Tariffs Give U.S. Steelmakers a Green Light to Lift Prices.” The Journal reported that Trump’s steel tariffs could “enable domestic companies to raise their prices, too,” and followed up with an example of it already happening: “At Riverdale Mills, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of wire fencing and welded mesh used in lobster and crab traps, Chief Executive James Knott said his domestic suppliers of steel wire rod notified him two weeks ago that they are raising prices.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/4/25]
  • Reuters reported that steel prices have increased costs for manufacturers in anticipation of Trump’s tariffs. Reuters explained: “While President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum are only slated to start on March 12, the action is already reverberating through the network of producers and builders that rely on the metals to make their goods. And not in a good way.” Reuters additionally reported: “Steel prices in the U.S. have surged in recent days, adding to gains since Trump became president. Hot rolled coil prices in the Midwest have jumped 12% to $839 per short ton during the two weeks to Thursday and climbed 20% since Trump took office on January 20, according to data provider Fastmarkets. By contrast, the price of that type of steel has risen only 6% in northern Europe and was barely changed in eastern China since January 20.” [Reuters, 2/24/25]
  • Major PC and laptop manufacturer Acer responded to Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports with a 10% price increase for its computers. Acer CEO Jason Chen said: “We will have to adjust the end user price to reflect the tariff. We think 10 percent probably will be the default price increase because of the import tax. It’s very straightforward.” [PC Gamer, 2/21/25]
  • WSJ: “U.S. Consumer Confidence Falls Back on Fears of Tariff-Induced Price Increases.” The Wall Street Journal reported that the “University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment tumbled to 64.7 at the end of February, well below January’s 71.7. It also was weaker than economists’ expectations of 67.8 from a Wall Street Journal poll.” The Journal further reported that “as a symbol of renewed concerns among U.S. consumers, year-ahead inflation expectations jumped to 4.3% this month from 3.3% in January, the highest reading since 2023 and now well above the range seen in the two years prior to the pandemic.” [The Wall Street Journal, 2/21/25]
  • CNN: “The stock market had its worst week of Trump’s presidency – the Dow lost 1,200 points over the course of Thursday and Friday” as “investors grew fearful that the weakening consumer sentiment could lead to a pullback in Americans’ shopping habits.” CNN also quoted FWDBonds chief economist Chris Rupkey telling investors, “The public’s fears have soared in just the last two weeks showing the blizzard of changes coming from the president’s desk have spilled over the line between pro-growth into the realm of pro-inflation. Once inflation expectations start moving higher it is only a matter of time before actual inflation takes off.” [CNN, 2/24/25]

Economists warned that Trump’s policies of tariffs and mass deportation would reignite inflation

  • Trump’s earliest acts included a major focus on mass deportation and announcing 25% tariffs on America’s biggest trading partners and industrial metals. According to the American Immigration Council, “on the first day of his second term of office, President Donald Trump issued ten executive orders and proclamations seeking to change the face of U.S. immigration law and policy” to “scale up a ‘mass deportation’ operation that everyone without legal status in the United States will be highly vulnerable to.” Trump also initially announced 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, as well as universal 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. [American Immigration Council, 1/22/25; Media Matters, 2/4/25, 2/11/25]
  • Economists across the political spectrum warned that Trump’s mass deportation and tariff policies would worsen inflation. These included conservative economists Casey B. Mulligan, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Michael Strain. Progressive and nonpartisan economists, such as Dean Baker, Claudia Sahm, and Josh Bivens also said Trump’s trade and immigration policies would worsen inflation. [Media Matters, 6/18/24]
  • Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists released a letter in June warning that Trump’s re-election “will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come” and that his policies “will reignite … inflation.” The letter cited “nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute,” who “predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.” [Media Matters, 6/27/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Fox Hosts Reject Reality On Crime, Inflation, Energy And Migration

Fox Hosts Reject Reality On Crime, Inflation, Energy And Migration

In recent weeks, multiple Fox personalities have been in denial of objective reality that under the Biden-Harris administration, especially in recent months, violent crime has declined, inflation is steadily declining, oil and natural gas production are at record highs, and unauthorized border crossings have plummeted.

Statistics show violent crime dropped since 2021, but Fox is claiming the opposite

On September 23, the FBI released its annual crime statistics estimates, which showed a three percent decline in violent crime nationwide, including an 11.6 percent drop in “murder and non-negligent manslaughter.” These statistics were widely reported, and The New York Times noted that this continues a pattern of declining murder rates under the Biden-Harris administration, with the decline in murders showing “the largest year-to-year decline since national record-keeping began in 1960.”

Yet Fox, which spent more than half the year running nearly 1,000 weekday segments on the bogus “migrant crime” narrative, has denied these statistics showing a drop in violent crime.

  • Fox News anchor Dana Perino: “So much for crime being down.” Perino, reacting to a chaotic video from Philadelphia, suggested it was evidence that statistics showing a drop in crime were not reflective of reality. Fox host Greg Gutfeld claimed, “The statistics that the FBI uses aren't taken seriously because they’re limited. They don't pass the smell test.” [Fox News, The Five, 9/24/24]
  • Fox host Harris Faulkner confusingly suggested that statistics may not show a decrease in violent crime — immediately after acknowledging that they do. On her program, Faulkner said: “So crime down — what about violent crime? Because that’s the part that is changing people’s lives.” Moments prior to this, Faulkner said: “The White House is praising new FBI statistics which indicate violent crime is down across the nation. However, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics have some numbers that tell a very different story.” [Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, 9/24/24]
  • Fox host Jeanine Pirro falsely claimed there has been an “increase in crime” and that Vice President Kamala Harris is responsible for it. [Fox News, The Five, 9/24/24]

Inflation has plummeted from its peak in 2022, yet Fox claims it's at “record highs”

Multiple measures of inflation have plummeted since their mid-2022 peak. Both the consumer price index and the personal consumption expenditures price index measures show 2.5 percent inflation — near the Federal Reserve’s two percent PCE target — and the producer price index measure shows a lower 1.7 percent. The improving inflation picture has at last galvanized the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, much to Fox’s displeasure. Yet Fox continues to cover inflation in a misleading manner, falsely claiming that it is currently at “record highs.”

  • Fox host Jesse Watters falsely claimed “inflation [is] at record highs.” [Fox News, Jesse Watters Primetime, 9/24/24]
  • Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt: “The truth is, inflation is high. That’s why prices are up.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/20/24]
  • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo: Harris lacks a “plan to take inflation down because she doesn’t have an understanding of what took us to 40-year highs.” Prior to Bartiromo saying this, her program aired a graphic showing the annual CPI inflation measurement declining significantly from its peak of 9.1 percent more than two years ago to its current level of 2.5 percent. [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 9/20/24]

Data shows record oil and natural gas production over past two years, but Fox denies it

American energy production is experiencing record highs under the Biden-Harris administration. In addition, the U.S. is on track to be the world’s leading exporter of liquefied natural gas for the second year in a row and is the largest supplier of LNG to Europe. In 2023, U.S. crude oil production, at an average of 12.9 million barrels per day, surpassed the record set in 2019, and the Energy Information Administration has forecasted a new record of 13.25 million barrels per day this year.

  • Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade: “We’re not” leading in natural gas and oil production. Kilmeade continued: “Don't let anybody tell you our oil and gas production is high.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/25/24]
  • Kilmeade falsely claimed there was double the daily production of oil under Trump compared to the Biden-Harris administration. Kilmeade said: “When she talked about there’s more oil production under us than under you, she’s wrong. It was 4 million barrels a day under Trump. It was 2 million barrels under Biden-Harris. So, that's totally inaccurate.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/13/24]

Far fewer unauthorized border crossings, yet Fox uses legal immigration data to disprove it

Report after report has shown that unauthorized border crossings in the Southwest have plummeted in recent months compared to previous years in the Biden-Harris administration. Even Fox News reported a huge drop in apprehensions at the border.

Yet Fox continues to challenge the data showing a huge drop in unauthorized border crossings by insisting that the number of people using the administration’s programs to entice immigrants to enter legally should be added to border crossing numbers. This denial of reality and goalpost shifting bears similarities to the rhetoric of Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, who has been purposefully referring to authorized migrants as “illegal aliens” after stirring up hate against Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, with false smears.

  • Fox correspondent Bill Melugin: Data showing “illegal crossings … have been down significantly” is “not a true reflection of the amount of people who are being allowed into the country.” Melugin suggested that data showing unauthorized border crossings plummeting in 2024 isn’t genuine, citing programs from the Biden-Harris administration to increase legal immigration. [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 9/17/24]
  • Fox host Laura Ingraham: Harris can only claim “our numbers are down” for unauthorized border crossings because immigrants are “coming through the ports of entry” legally and “bringing in people under ‘legal’ cover … from four countries.” Melugin added: “We’re talking, like, 70,000 to 80,000 people per month between these two programs that come into the U.S. quote-unquote ‘lawfully,’ and they never get counted in the border numbers now. They’re not illegal crossings, so they don't show up in Border Patrol numbers. So yeah, those numbers have fallen off a cliff, but if you look at the port-of-entry numbers, those numbers are skyrocketing. They’re bringing tens of thousands of people in every single month via these lawful programs, and it’s been effective at pushing those illegal crossings down.” [Fox News, The Ingraham Angle, 9/9/24]
  • Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy decried legal immigration programs: The administration “can artificially keep their numbers low and pretend that they're actually doing something on the border when, in fact, they're doing the opposite. They’re increasing them.” Campos-Duffy cited Fox contributor and former Trump administration Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan to claim that legal immigration programs enacted by the Biden-Harris administration are “in place to change the numbers so those people … are not counted in the illegal crossings.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends Weekend, 8/31/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Late Night Exposes Trump's Mad Tariff Plan As Mainstream Outlets Fail

Late Night Exposes Trump's Mad Tariff Plan As Mainstream Outlets Fail

A week after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump proposed restricting food imports when asked how he’d lower the cost of food and groceries, many major newspapers, newswires, and broadcast news programs continue to ignore his proposal, which would lead to higher food prices for American consumers. And while broadcast news programs failed to report on the question and Trump’s long, rambling response, NBC late night host Seth Meyers and CBS late night host Stephen Colbert both highlighted Trump’s incoherence.

During a September 17 town hall in Flint, Michigan, an audience member asked Trump how he would “bring down the cost of food and groceries.” After Trump rambled about unrelated energy prices and Federal Reserve interest rates, he responded:

“We gotta work with our farmers. Our farmers are being decimated right now. They’re being absolutely, absolutely decimated. And you know, one of the reasons is we allow a lot of farm product into our country. We’re gonna have to be a little bit like other countries. We’re not gonna allow so much come — we’re gonna let our farmers go to work.”

Media Matters noted previously that several economists explained that Trump’s proposal would raise food prices, not lower them.

Some national news outlets, including Axios, noted that “Trump’s vow to lower grocery costs will backfire,” and writing in The Atlantic, the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome and Sophia Bagley described the folly of “Trump’s deranged plan to lower food prices by raising them.” MSNBC prime-time host Chris Hayes also mentioned Trump’s response to the food price question.

But many of the most prominent and influential major news organizations in the country failed to cover Trump’s comments at all.

Factiva searches turned up no coverage at all from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and Reuters between September 17 and noon on September 24.

A SnapStream search of the same time frame also turned up no coverage from the broadcast morning and evening news programming of ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS, along with the corporate networks’ Sunday political talk shows.

Instead, CBS’ Evening News and PBS' NewsHour covered Trump’s farming-focused September 23 event in Pennsylvania, during which he threatened farm equipment manufacturer John Deere with 200% tariffs.

NBC’s Nightly News and Today covered Trump’s prearranged visit to a Pennsylvania grocery store the same day, where he gave $100 to a potential voter as a campaign stunt (a possible federal crime).

And The Associated Press reported on both September 23 events. These reports, however, failed to mention Trump’s incoherent answer on food prices from the previous week, even though he specifically mentioned that he would restrict imports of “farm product.”

Meanwhile, two of these networks’ late night comedy shows did cover his rambling response.

Both NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers and CBS’ Late Night with Stephen Colbert drew attention to the incoherent nature of Trump attempting, and failing, to explain how he would lower food prices, while their networks’ news programs ignored it.

Seth Meyers even helpfully contextualized the actual reason that grocery prices spiked in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting both the incoherence of Trump's rambling response and the ease with which a news network could have informed its viewers about the topic.

Methodology

Media Matters searched print articles in the Factiva database from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and Reuters for any of the terms “Trump,” “former president,” “nominee,” or “candidate” within the same headline or paragraphs as any of the terms “food,” “energy,” “interest” or “rate” or any variation of either of the terms “grocery” or “farmer” from September 17, 2024, when GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump answered a question about how he would lower food prices during a Michigan town hall, through noon on September 24, 2024.

We also searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original episodes of ABC's Good Morning America, World News Tonight, and This Week; CBS' Mornings, Evening News, and Face the Nation; NBC's Today, Nightly News, and Meet the Press; and PBS’ NewsHour for for any of the terms “Trump,” “former president,” “nominee,” or “candidate” within close proximity of any of the terms “food,” “energy,” “interest” or “rate” or any variation of either of the terms “grocery” or “farmer” from September 17, 2024, through noon on September 24, 2024.

We included articles, which we defined as instances when Trump’s comments responding to a question about lowering the cost of food were mentioned in the headline or lead paragraphs in any section of the newspaper or newswire.

We also included segments, which we defined as instances when Trump’s comments responding to a question about lowering the cost of food were the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the comments. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the comments with one another.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Right-Wing Media Praise Vance For Spreading Toxic Myths About Migrants

Right-Wing Media Praise Vance For Spreading Toxic Myths About Migrants

Right-wing websites are celebrating Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio Sen. JD Vance for spreading a longstanding xenophobic trope in a CNN interview that “communicable diseases like HIV and TB have skyrocketed” in Springfield, Ohio, because of Haitian immigrants in the city. This falsehood follows his debunked smear that Haitian residents of the city were eating people’s pets, a lie reportedly linked to recent bomb threats.

Vance had already spread this smear in a September 10 post on X, formerly known as Twitter. But it was Vance repeating the falsehood in a CNN interview shortly after the ABC News presidential debate which right-wing websites are celebrating.

SEN. JD VANCE: And again, whether those exact rumors turn out to be mostly true, somewhat true, whatever the case may be, Kaitlan, this town has been ravaged by 20,000 migrants coming in. Health care costs are up, housing costs are up, communicable diseases like HIV and TB have skyrocketed in this small Ohio town. This is what Kamala Harris' border policies have done.

Vance repeated this smear in a September 13 post on X as well.

Right-wing blogs have responded to Vance's misinformation with widespread praise.

A Townhall post which quoted his smear that Haitian immigrants are widely spreading disease in Springfield declared his CNN appearance “masterful,” adding, “Bravo, sir.” The Media Research Center’s NewsBusters embedded a clip of Vance’s CNN interview, declaring: “JD Vance SCHOOLS CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Immigration and Cat Memes.” And RedState included a transcript of Vance’s disease smear in its post congratulating him for making “a very real and damning point about the media,” adding: “When you come at JD Vance, you better get ready for a fight. CNN's Kaitlan Collins certainly wasn't.”

For all of their congratulations to Vance over continuing to push this smear, these right-wing blogs missed the reality that Vance is simply lying. Making it up.

Data from the Ohio Department of Health and Clark County Combined Health District — which Vance presumably could easily obtain, given that he’s one of the state’s senators — shows that there are barely any new cases of either TB or HIV in Clark County, of which Springfield is the county seat.

The most recent data available, for 2018-22, shows that in 2018, Clark County reported 10 new HIV infections. Six new HIV infections were reported there in 2019, six again in 2020, 12 in 2021, and 13 in 2022. These five years of data reveal that between 2018-22, the county had a cumulative total of 322 HIV diagnoses — while the state’s cumulative total during this time period was 39,729 HIV diagnoses. To put it simply, Clark County, which includes Springfield, represented less than 1% of all HIV diagnoses in Ohio during this time period.

A December 2022 report of TB cases in Clark County prepared for the Clark County Combined Health District goes back a full decade, showing several incidences of 1, 2, 3, and sometimes zero cases of active TB in the entire county each year.

Clark County Combined Health District Commissioner Chris Cook told NBC News that Vance’s claim of a surge in diseases there is false: “Overall, we have not seen a substantial increase in all reportable communicable diseases. In fact, if you look at all reportable communicable diseases together (minus COVID) for the year ending 2023 you will see that we are at our lowest rate in Clark County since 2016.” And according to Bruce Vanderhoff, the director of Ohio’s Health Department, the state isn’t seeing a “measurable or discernible increase” in vaccine-preventable illnesses, further debunking Vance’s smear.

As Advocate explained, Vance is reinforcing “historical stigmas, stoking xenophobia and racial fear.” Right-wing media may be celebrating Vance pushing these cruel lies, but legitimate media organizations should be prepared to call him out.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Jerome Powell

Trump's Lackeys Blame Harris For Rate-Induced Market Drop

On Monday, stocks tumbled globally following Friday’s release of a weaker-than-expected jobs report, which economists have pinned on the Federal Reserve for not cutting interest rates earlier. According to CNN, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and NASDAQ each plunged by several percentage points when trading opened.

Yet former president and current GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump used his Truth Social account to baselessly cast blame on likely Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris for the market tumble. Following Trump’s posts on the “Kamala Crash,” right-wing media figures also picked up this framing.

Financial news outlets reported that stock markets declined globally in reaction to weaker-than-expected jobs report

According to CNBC, “Fears of a U.S. recession were the main culprit for the global market meltdown after Friday’s disappointing July jobs report.” The Wall Street Journalsimilarly reported on the market decline that “concerns about a slowing U.S. economy are front and center after job growth slowed sharply in July.” Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at The Budget Lab at Yale, explained that the U.S. is currently not in recession.

Both outlets also reported worries that the Federal Reserve was too slow to cut interest rates. Professor Jeremy Siegel of The Wharton School said on CNBC in response to the market selloff that the Fed should make a large emergency rate cut. Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also suggested that the time is ripe for an emergency rate cut by the Fed.

Recently, multiple economists have been blaming the Trump-appointed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for his failure to timely cut interest rates prior to the weaker-than-expected jobs report last Friday. Trump sycophants tried to blame the weak jobs report on Harris, too.

Trump and MAGA media try to blame stock market drop on Harris


  • Trump posted on Truth Social: “Of course there is a massive market downturn. Kamala is even worse than Crooked Joe. Markets will NEVER accept the Radical Left Lunatic that DESTROYED San Francisco and California, as a whole. Next move, THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 2024! You can’t play games with MARKETS. KAMALA CRASH!!!” Trump blamed the market decline on Harris in multiple other posts as well, including one that read simply, “TRUMP CASH vs. KAMALA CRASH!” [Truth Social, 8/5/24, 8/5/24, 8/5/24, 8/5/24]
  • Former Trump official and current Newsmax analyst Ric Grenell: “The Kamala Crash.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Rumble host Donald Trump Jr.: “It's the #KamalaCrash!!!!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Project 2025 contributor Stephen Moore said on Fox News, “I think a lot of people on Wall Street … are a little worried about the agenda she [Kamala Harris] would bring in.” When co-anchor Sandra Smith asked, “Do you think a lot of this is about what’s to come with the election?” Moore replied: “Yeah, I do. … If you look at what Kamala Harris is saying, she wants to double the capital gains tax, she wants to tax unrealized capital gains, she wants to re-regulate virtually anything that moves in the economy. And she’s basically totally embraced the Biden agenda.” [Fox News, America Reports, 8/5/24; The Guardian, 2/29/24]
  • Newsmax guests echoed Trump, blaming Harris for the stock market decline. On Newsmax’s The National Report, GOP strategist Jennifer Nassour argued that the markets were “clearly” reacting to Harris “being the pick, the potential nominee for the Democratic Party.” Another guest, RNC youth advisory council chair Brilyn Hollyhand, added: “This is the Kamala crash, just like President Trump’s saying.” [Newsmax, The National Report, 8/5/24]
  • Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka: “The markets around the world are saying, hang on, this Kamala is not going to fix things for us.” Appearing as a guest on Wake Up America, Gorka added: “The world has just voted a big negative on her candidacy with this ripple through the stock market.” Co-host Sharla McBride agreed, saying, “Yeah, you’re exactly right.” [Newsmax, Wake Up America, 8/5/24]
  • Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk: “Today, markets are reacting directly to Kamala Harris.” Kirk continued: “I encourage all of you, do not look at your stock portfolio today. Do not look at your 401k. That is all brought to you by Kamala Harris.” [Rumble, The Charlie Kirk Show, 8/5/24]
  • Kirk: “The NASDAQ had never been down 1,000 points in its entire history, until two weeks after Kamala Harris becoming president became a serious possibility.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Popular right-wing X account Election Wizard shared Trump’s Truth Social post, writing “‘Kamala Crash!!!’” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • GOP strategist Alex Bruesewitz: “President Trump is spot on. THIS IS THE KAMALA CRASH!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • GOP strategist Steve Guest: “brat summer ➡️ crash summer #Kamalanomics.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • The Post Millennial ran an article under the headline “'I told you so': Trump slams Biden, Harris over global stock, crypto crash.” [The Post Millennial, 8/5/24]
  • MAGA cartoonist Ben Garrison posted a cartoon appearing to show Biden leading people off a cliff while talking about the economy, adding: “Bidenomics… Kamala Krash.” In a separate post, Garrison wrote, “I bet a lot of people are pretty pissed off about the Kamala Crash today!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24, 8/5/24]
  • Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast chief financial and operating officer Grace Chong: “Kamala Krash.” [Twitter/x, 8/5/24]
  • Gab CEO Andrew Torba: “The Kamala Crash.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Right-wing commentator Bill Mitchell: “Thanks Kamala. That Bidenomics is really working.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]
  • Right-wing podcast host and serial plagiarist Benny Johnson: “KAMALA CRASH.” Johnson also called Trump’s “TRUMP CASH vs. KAMALA CRASH!” post “great messaging.” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24, 8/5/24]
  • Former Project Veritas affiliate Eric Spracklen: “Trump is on fire this morning 🔥 KAMALA CRASH!” [Twitter/X, 8/5/24]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Joseph Stiglitz

Why Nobel Economists Spoke Up To Warn Public On Trump Policies

Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists, led by Joseph Stiglitz, released a letter this week warning the American public of the devastating effects of former president, convicted felon, and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s second term agenda. Stiglitz specifically cited concern over polling showing that Americans “think Trump would be better for the economy” than President Joe Biden as his impetus for organizing the letter, which argues that a Trump victory would be enormously harmful to the economy and would actually make inflation worse.

This letter follows several months of Media Matters reviews of the print news stories on inflation from five top U.S. newspapers, which showed absurdly little coverage of inflationary policies and proposals promoted by Trump and his advisers.

Economists warn that Trump will “reignite this inflation” if elected

The letter, first reported by Axios on June 25, stated, “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden’s economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump’s.” Concerning inflation, the signatories wrote:

Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast. There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets. Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.

The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come. We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.

In a later interview with CNBC, Stiglitz credited Biden for the quick decline in the inflation rate, saying: “Inflation has been brought down, actually, remarkably quickly. I would say it’s because of Biden.”

Indeed, President Biden's signature domestic policy (the Inflation Reduction Act) was passed just as inflation peaked in the Summer of 2022, and all traditional measures of inflation show that prices have largely stabilized over the past year after temporarily spiking in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic:

Major newspapers ignored Trump’s inflationary policies in their reporting on inflation

Even though multiple news outlets, including some top newspapers, have featured stories citing experts to draw attention to the inflationary effects of Trump policy proposals, this reporting has been left out of the vast majority of print newspaper coverage of inflation.

Studies by Media Matters (here, here, here, and here) found that between January 11, 2024, and June 11, 2024 — the periods between the releases of the December 2023 and May 2024 CPI reports — only 11 out of 325 (three percent) print news articles about inflation from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times included any mention that past or proposed policies from Trump and/or his advisers would likely worsen inflation. Twice as many articles included criticism of the Biden economy from Trump or his campaign as included any context about Trump’s own inflationary agenda.

Stiglitz wants to correct mistaken idea that Trump would perform better on the economy

Stiglitz told CNBC that “he felt compelled to initiate the letter based on a flurry of recent polling in which voters said they trusted Trump over Biden to manage the U.S. economy,” saying: “I thought it would be important for Americans to know that at least a group of credible economists differs very strongly.”

Two of the newspapers covered in the Media Matters studies — The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times— included reporting on one of these polls in their print editions. Yet neither of the articles mentioned that Trump’s policies would worsen inflation. Separately, one Washington Postprint article headlined “Skyrocketing rents and home prices may be pivotal in the 2024 election” not only failed to inform its readers about Trump’s inflationary policies, it absurdly claimed that “Trump has mainly proposed reducing inflation” as a solution.

The nation’s top newspapers are failing to properly inform their readers of a crucial issue in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, and they should heed the warning raised by these Nobel Prize-winning economists to provide better reporting on Trump’s inflationary policy proposals. Additionally, there is voluminous evidence demonstrating that the economy has performed better under Democratic presidencies than under their Republican counterparts throughout the past century. The public deserves to know these facts.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Planning Trump's Agenda, Heritage Foundation Slates Huge Social Security Cut

Planning Trump's Agenda, Heritage Foundation Slates Huge Social Security Cut

The Heritage Foundation, which has played a central role in organizing the planned extremist takeover of the federal government known as Project 2025 for the next Republican president, is now calling for the Social Security retirement age to be raised to 70. Heritage fearmongered about a possible future benefit cut in order to argue for cutting benefits now.

On May 6, the Social Security board of trustees released their annual report outlining the short- and long-term financial projections of the Social Security insurance programs serving retirees, survivors of deceased workers, and people with disabilities. This year, the report actually noted that the program’s long-term financial outlook had improved somewhat over the past year. According to the report, with no changes to current law, the retirement trust fund will continue to be able to pay out full benefits until 2033, at which time the trust fund will become depleted and would require an across-the-board benefit cut of 21% in order to reflect the amount of Social Security revenue still coming in.

A June 17 Heritage Foundation post used this possible future benefit cut to demand that more immediate cuts to benefits be made by raising the retirement age and changing the program’s inflation adjustment:

If Congress does nothing to address Social Security’s shortfalls, benefits will be cut by 21 percent, across the board beginning in just nine years—in 2033. That means that anyone who is of Generation X or younger will not receive a single full benefit. Even Baby Boomers and Silent Generation retirees will be subject to cuts.
…
To restore Social Security’s intent, policymakers should gradually increase the normal retirement age from 67 to 69 or 70—moving the age up by one or two months per year—and index it to life expectancy.
…
While updating Social Security’s retirement age is an important component of reform, it would only solve about 20 percent to 30 percent of the program’s shortfalls. A more accurate inflation adjustment would solve another 20 percent to 25 percent of the program’s shortfalls.

Heritage also waxed poetic about the virtues of people spending longer in the workforce, with Roe Institute senior research fellow Rachel Greszler arguing that “older workers’ wisdom and experience provides an invaluable insight and mentorship to younger workers.”

However, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained prior to the release of this year’s trustee report, raising the Social Security retirement age would have the effect of cutting benefits by about the same amount as the projected 2033 benefit cut under current law:

The irony of that argument is that over time, raising the retirement age would yield the same result that they purport to want to avoid — a large, across-the-board benefit cut. Raising the retirement age to 70 would ultimately cut average lifetime benefits for new retirees by nearly 20 percent, whereas if Social Security’s reserves are depleted, congressional inaction would force a 23 percent cut for all beneficiaries.

Calls by The Heritage Foundation to reduce Social Security benefits should raise alarm bells. Heritage is not just some right-wing think tank; it is the driving force behind Project 2025, which aims to radically change the federal government in numerous regressive ways should former President Donald Trump win his reelection bid in November:

The Heritage Foundation’s nearly 900-page policy book, titled Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise, describes Project 2025’s priorities and how they would be implemented, broken down by departments in the federal bureaucracy and organized around “four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative administration: a policy agenda, personnel, training, and a 180-day playbook.” Written primarily by former Trump officials and conservative commentators connected to The Heritage Foundation, these proposals would severely inhibit the federal government’s protections around reproductive rights, LGBTQ and civil rights, climate change efforts, and immigration.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Right-Wing Media Back Trump's 'Deranged' Plan To Replace Tax With Tariffs

Right-Wing Media Back Trump's 'Deranged' Plan To Replace Tax With Tariffs

During a June 13 meeting with Republican elected officials on Capitol Hill, disgraced former president, convicted felon, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly floated a proposal for a second term that could involve replacing income taxes with tariffs (taxes on imported goods). Republican attendees later confirmed that Trump had proposed using tariffs (which increase costs for consumers) to cut or even replace income taxes.

Tax and economic policy experts from across the political spectrum criticized Trump's proposal, which could severely disrupt international commerce and the domestic economy while supplanting the United States' existing system of progressive income taxation with regressive consumption taxes.

Some in media blasted the idea as impossible and even “deranged,” pointing out that it would be impossible to replace income tax revenue with tariffs, with experts highlighting that the plan would amount to a huge tax increase for middle class and lower-income Americans. Yet, some in conservative media offered support for the unworkable idea.

Media outlets explain that Trump’s idea just can’t work

Business-focused news organizations such as Bloomberg and even the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal noted in their reporting of Trump’s idea that replacing income taxes with tariffs is simply unworkable. On cable news, MSNBC called out Trump’s idea as “bananas,” “deranged,” and devastating for working Americans.

  • Bloomberg: “Using tariff increases to offset income taxes is a tall order, because the US brings in much more money from levies on individuals than on imported products.” Bloomberg noted that “customs duties still make up just 2% of federal revenues — while the individual income tax made up almost half of federal receipts in 2023, according to the Office of Management and Budget.” Bloomberg further explained that “increasing tariffs to pay for even a modest tax cut would require a massive hike in import levies that would mean a big increase on consumer prices.” [Bloomberg, 6/13/24]
  • The Wall Street Journal: Trump’s idea of “replacing the entire income tax system with tariffs” is “an arithmetically challenged plan that would reverse more than 100 years of progressive taxation and is virtually assured to raise consumer prices.”The Wall Street Journal further explained that “Trump’s tariffs—or any tariffs—are almost certainly too small to replace the entire income tax. The U.S. imports less than $4 trillion of goods annually and it collects $2.5 trillion in individual income taxes, which means it would take tariff rates of 70% or higher to fill the void left by repealing income taxes. It depends, too, on how much demand for imported goods changes as tariffs rise.” [The Wall Street Journal, 6/14/24]
  • MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle: Trump’s policy pitch “was bananas.” One of her guests, CNBC senior analyst Ron Insana, replied that “it would launch a global trade war because you’d get retaliatory tariffs from every other country on the planet.” He added, “We import $3.8 trillion worth of goods. We take in $2.5 trillion in revenue from individual income taxes. So, do the math. You’d have to basically almost put 100% tariffs on all imported goods coming to the United States, which would exacerbate inflation, launch a global trade war, possibly spark a recession or worse.” [MSNBC, The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, 6/13/24]
  • MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: “Donald Trump proposed one of the most deranged policies I have ever heard.” [MSNBC, All In with Chris Hayes, 6/13/24]

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Today, behind closed doors, outside of the view of cameras, Donald Trump proposed one of the most deranged policies I have ever heard. He told Republican lawmakers behind closed doors he wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it entirely with tariffs, effectively taking us back to the 19th century. This idea makes as much sense as ripping up the entire Interstate Highway System and replacing it with canals.

Economist Paul Krugman did some back of the envelope math and estimates the policy, quote, “would require an average tariff of 133%.” Not 10%. That is a 133% tax hike on all imported goods that would be passed on to consumers. A sales tax of 133%. It would cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars. Former senior policy adviser to the National Economic Council Brendan Duke explained further, quote: “Another way to put Trump's latest incredibly unworkable idea. One—” get this, “It would raise taxes by $5,000 for a typical family,” if you’re a working person who buys stuff. “It would cut taxes for the average family in the top 0.1% by $1.5 million.”

This proposal would jack up everything, everywhere for normal people, crushing the average American's wallet, while giving the wealthiest folks who no longer have to pay an income tax and don't buy that much relative to their income, an enormous windfall. Millions and millions of dollars. This is the man who has a 50-50 shot of taking the White House, in large part because of the macroeconomic conditions that produced high inflation. And he is seriously, quite seriously and earnestly, currently running on the most insanely inflationary platform I’ve ever seen. Higher prices, higher taxes, for everyone. It would make what we’ve seen over the last few years look like nothing.

Experts from across the political spectrum explain how Trump’s proposal would raise prices and taxes on the middle class and why it can’t replace the income tax

  • Senior fellow Kyle Pomerleau of the conservative American Enterprise Institute wrote: “Fundamentally unserious stuff. … The price of imports would rise, but so would the [dollar], leading to lower sales and income for exporters.” [MarketWatch, 6/13/24]
  • Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget senior vice president Marc Goldwein: “U.S. imports total ~$3.5 trillion per year, while total income tax revenue is about $3 trillion ($2.5t individual). You’d be well on the wrong side of the tariff Laffer Curve if you tried this.” Goldwein’s Laffer Curve comment reflects the hypothesis that setting high tariffs (as a tax) would end up reducing the economic activity it is taxing, thus reducing the amount of revenue. [MarketWatch, 6/13/24; Cato Institute, 11/21/23]
  • Tax Foundation senior economist and research director Erica York: “The individual income tax raises about $2 trillion annually on a tax base of personal income of roughly $15 trillion. Customs duties currently raise about $80 billion annually on imports of $3.4 trillion.” [MarketWatch, 6/13/24]
  • Former White House Council of Economic Advisers chief economist Ernie Tedeschi: “The most important takeaway from the last 48 hours of tax talk is that President Trump is seriously toying with a large, broad additional tariff as a central component of our tax system. Regardless of the specific rate, that means a substantially higher middle class tax burden.” [Twitter/X, 6/14/24]
  • Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman: “My first-pass estimate” on Trump’s idea of replacing the income tax with tariffs “is that this would require an *average* tariff rate of 133 percent.” Krugman added: “So how is it that in the 19th century the federal government largely paid its way with tariffs? Because back then the government was much, much smaller. Believing that we can go back to those days is just ignorant.” [Twitter/X, 6/13/24, 6/13/24]
  • Brendan Duke, senior director for economic policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund wrote: “It shifts taxes from wealthy people to low- and middle-income people and people who buy groceries and people who go to Target.” In a thread posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, Duke also explained how Trump’s idea could have negative “effects on democracy and transparency” as well, including by potentially granting “tariff exemptions to supporters & people who give him money” and raising “tariffs on his supporters' foreign competitors,” which would “dovetail” with “the Trump/Project 2025 project of eliminating the bureaucracy's guardrails from political interference.” [The Wall Street Journal, 6/14/24; Twitter/X, 6/14/24, 6/14/24]
  • Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell: With millions of Americans who pay no income taxes paying tariffs instead, “this sounds like a huge tax increase on the lower/middle income classes.” [CNBC, 6/13/24]
  • Economic analyst Steven Rattner: “Swapping all income tax for tariffs would be unbelievably regressive.” [MarketWatch, 6/13/24]

Right-wing and fringe media endorse Trump’s impossible idea

    • Heritage Foundation economist and former Trump adviser Stephen Moore: Trump’s 10% earlier tariff proposal could instead pay for extending the Trump tax cuts, or the revenue could be dedicated to “lower[ing] the payroll tax—which deters work and hiring.” Moore's pivot to the payroll tax is telling, as it is the dedicated funding source for Social Security, a long-time target of right-wing devotees committed to altering and eventually eliminating the crucial benefit program for retirees. [The Wall Street Journal, 6/14/24; Media Matters, 3/13/24]
    • Moore on Newsmax: “If you could actually eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with an across-the-board tariff, that would be a very good thing for the economy.” Moore continued with his full-throated endorsement of the idea: “Obviously, it would mean, you know, we wouldn't have 40, 50, 70%, you know, progressive income tax rates. You'd be taxing people on their consumption rather than their investments and savings. So, it'd be rocket fuel for the economy if you could do it.” Moore concluded: “For the first 100 and almost 150 years of this country, we had no income tax and we funded most of our government through tariffs. And that was a much more efficient way to fund government than through our crazy income tax right now.” [Newsmax, The National Report, 6/14/24]
    • On Fox Business, Moore retreated from humoring Trump’s idea as a replacement for the income tax: “This is a perfect example of where the left takes Trump literally and not seriously.” Moore watered down Trump’s idea, saying: “He wasn't saying we’re going to completely eliminate the income tax. What he meant to say is that with the tariff revenue that we bring in, if he does that 10% across-the-board tariff, we could use some of that money to reduce income taxes. You could maybe reduce the — you could probably get rid of the entire gift and estate and the death tax. You could maybe cut the capital gains tax. Maybe you could reduce the payroll tax on workers a little bit.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 6/17/24]
    • Fox Business host and former Trump adviser Larry Kudlow admitted Trump’s tariff idea can’t replace individual income tax, but pushed it as a replacement for corporate taxes. On his show, Kudlow said “the numbers don’t work” to replace individual income taxes with tariffs before adding: “But the corporate income tax numbers work.” [Fox Business, Kudlow, 6/14/24]
    • Fox & Friends First co-host Todd Piro: “Could Trump get rid of the income tax?” Fox Business anchor Cheryl Casone replied, “I want to say that sounds good, but — OK, let me explain this. It sounds good.” She continued, “Former President Trump is now floating the idea of the U.S. eliminating income taxes, replacing it with tariffs on imported goods. He also says that tariffs could be negotiating leverage against bad actors out there.” Casone then suggested the idea was a way for Trump to get campaign financing from Wall Street, but did not say that the idea would be unworkable. [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 6/14/24]
    • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “It’s one of these things that … sounds nuts, that sounds far fetched. … Except if — most Americans don’t realize we didn’t always have an income tax.” Payne lamented the initial creation of the income tax structure a century ago, proclaiming “when government got bigger, it got hungrier for power” after the two World Wars. Payne acknowledged “it couldn’t work completely now” but seemed to express nostalgia for when America “actually had an economy driven by zero income taxes.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 6/14/24]
    • Fox Business correspondent Hillary Vaughn: “If the side effect of all of this … is the government being cut down to size, Republicans probably won’t see that as a downside.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 6/14/24]
    • Gateway Pundit referred to Trump’s idea as “a bold proposal” and “bombshell proposal” to “abolish income tax and implement an ‘all tariff policy.’” [The Gateway Pundit, 6/13/24]
    • Townhall: “Trump Gets Positive Feedback After Floating Proposal of Eliminating Income Tax.” Townhall’s idea of “positive feedback” appears to consist of posts from several random pro-Trump social media users who agreed with the idea. [Townhall, 6/13/24]
    • Students for Trump founder Ryan Fournier: “Eliminating the income tax and replacing it with tariffs doesn’t sound like a bad idea.” [Twitter/X, 6/13/24]
    • Multiple QAnon figures endorsed Trump’s idea. QAnon John wrote: “This would be a MASSIVE BLOW to the Central Bank Cabal. Quite possibly THE single most devastating blow Trump could bring to the Globalists. With a cessation of income tax feeding the fiat debt machine, the Federal Reserve would be FORCED to dissolve into the abyss. It would be the END OF THE FED & DEBT SLAVERY. THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. BRING. IT. ON.” Woke Societies wrote: “Who’s going to say no to this? Trump just won.” Jordan Sather wrote: “How can you not support this?” [Gab, 6/13/24; Telegram, 6/13/24, 6/14/24; Media Matters, 4/18/22]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

What 'Bloodbath'? Auto Is Stronger, Paying Higher Wages Than Under Trump

What 'Bloodbath'? Auto Is Stronger, Paying Higher Wages Than Under Trump

During a March 16 campaign rally in Ohio, former president and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” Trump’s violent rhetoric spurred a flurry of media discussion whether his warning of a “bloodbath” centered on other remarks in his speech about the auto industry, as suggested by the Trump campaign, or meant something more sinister given his history of endorsing actual political violence.

But the former explanation itself is a lie; the auto industry is at an 18-year high for employment and wages have soared during the Biden administration, even as Trump's MAGA media allies claim that the industry is currently suffering because of President Joe Biden’s policies. Additionally, Trump's earlier policies as president hurt the auto industry. (Given these facts, it should come as no surprise that the United Auto Workers endorsed Biden for reelection earlier this year.)

Media outlets are so caught up in the spin over exactly which “bloodbath” Trump might’ve been referring to, they are losing sight of the fact that even his campaign’s excuse is itself another lie about the economy.

  • Trump warned of a “bloodbath” if he loses the presidential election
    • During his rally, Trump said: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” He later added: “If this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country.” [NBC News, 3/16/24]
    • The Biden campaign responded to Trump's comments by pointing to his previous support of political violence. “This is who Donald Trump is: a loser who gets beat by over 7 million votes and then instead of appealing to a wider mainstream audience doubles down on his threats of political violence,” Biden campaign spokesman James Singer said. “He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge.” [The Washington Post, 1/10/24; NBC News, 3/16/24]
    • NBC News reported that during the rally, Trump saluted while a recording played of the national anthem being sung by jail inmates awaiting trial for the January 6 insurrection; Trump also referred to imprisoned rioters as “hostages” and “unbelievable patriots.” The article also included a statement from Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, who said: “Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers.” [NBC News, 3/16/24]
  • Trump's media allies came to his defense, pushing his campaign's claim that he meant a “bloodbath” in the auto industry and assailing its performance under Biden due to EVs
    • Newsmax host Emma Rechenberg: “It was clearly in the context of what's going on with the economy, and what's going on more specifically here with the auto industry right now.” Clearly implying that the auto industry is hurting right now, Rechenberg added: “And we've seen from the current president, the Biden administration, their push for this EV market, right, and outsourcing work from other countries here.” [Newsmax, The National Report, 3/18/24]
    • Newsmax host Rob Finnerty: “He's talking about the auto industry and the fact that jobs are being taken by car companies that are importing cars, and that means factories are closing here in the U.S.” Regular guest Mercedes Schlapp of the American Conservative Union echoed this, saying: “It's very clear that he's referring to the auto industry with the fact that these auto parts would be made in different countries like China and Mexico, and the importance of taking strong actions against China when it comes to the auto industry.” [Newsmax, Wake Up America, 3/18/24]
    • CNN conservative commentator Alice Stewart: “There are several definitions of ‘bloodbath,’” but Trump's “campaign made the point quite accurately that Joe Biden's electric vehicle mandates are killing the American manufacturing industry.” Stewart continued: “They're making the case that under the Biden administration, that's not great news for the auto manufacturing industry, and that's an accurate statement.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 3/17/24]
    • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo: Trump “said there would be a bloodbath in the auto industry if Biden gets his way jamming down the throats of Americans EV vehicles, and the mainstream media completely mangled his words.” [Fox News, Sunday Morning Futures, 3/17/24]
  • Auto industry employment is at the highest levels in 18 years, and autoworkers made huge wage gains
    • Bureau of Labor Statistics data show more people currently employed in auto manufacturing than at any time since July 2006. Data presented in a graph from the St. Louis Fed shows that nearly 1.07 million Americans are currently employed in auto manufacturing, the highest level since July 2006, when just over 1.07 million workers were employed in the industry. [Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, accessed 3/18/24]
    • BLS data also show that wages throughout the auto industry are higher than ever under Biden. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 3/18/24]
    • Biden supported the UAW strike that resulted in “record wage hikes” for autoworkers' wages, while Trump opposed it. In December, Reuters reported that car manufacturers in the U.S. “are bumping up pay for their non-union workers after the United Auto Workers (UAW) secured record wage hikes and benefits for union workers at the Detroit Three automakers.” And while Biden supported UAW's efforts to expand unionization and made history by joining striking autoworkers on the picket line, Trump blasted the strike and slammed it in a speech to a non-union auto parts plant. [Reuters, 12/19/23, 11/10/23; NBC News, 9/26/23; ABC News, 9/28/23]
    • New car sales in 2024 are expected to rise to the highest since 2019, normalizing after supply chain issues caused by the pandemic. CNBC reported: “Any increase in U.S. sales next year would mark the first sequential sales growth for the automotive industry since 2015-16.” [CNBC, 12/21/23]
    • Biden is not pandering to Chinese EV automakers, and has maintained the 25% tax on Chinese-made cars that Trump put in place. Biden is also currently debating raising these tariffs even more, despite pleas from Chinese car company BYD to remove them. (There is controversy over whether this would be the best move for climate goals.) [The Wall Street Journal, 12/21/23; Vox, 3/4/24]
    • Trump's policies hurt the auto industry and he previously called for wage cuts and bankruptcy for the sector
    • Trump's steel tariffs hurt the auto industry. PolitiFact explained that Trump’s actions to set a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports actually “hampered the U.S. auto industry, sparking the loss of thousands of jobs.” The article continued: “GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler, now part of Stellantis, all have closed plants in Michigan since 2018, the year the tariffs were imposed. GM and Ford paid $1 billion each in increased steel costs in 2018. … A December 2020 summary from the Congressional Research Service, Congress’ nonpartisan policy arm, said most studies ‘suggest a negative overall effect on U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the tariffs’ and that most studies found U.S. consumers and companies ‘bore nearly the entire increased costs associated with the tariffs.’” [PolitiFact, 10/8/23]
    • In 2008, Trump called for wage cuts for autoworkers and said the Big Three U.S. automakers should go bankrupt. In a 2008 Fox News interview, Trump said, “I think that the unions are really, really hurting very badly what's going on with the autos. … And by the way, the union workers are fantastic, but probably they have to take a cut.” Trump added: “They get their little 5%. They get another 2%. They get another 3%, 4%, then all of a sudden they're making more money than the people that own the company.” During that Fox interview, Trump also said the automakers should go through bankruptcy: “There are so many ways that it can be saved. If they do a Chapter 11. … If they do a Chapter 11, and over the years I've put companies into a Chapter 11. You negotiate from Chapter 11. It's a tremendous strength.” [Fox News, Your World, 12/17/08]
  • News organizations covered the spin over Trump’s “bloodbath” comment without debunking the lie about the auto industry’s performance under Biden
    • The Washington Post carried a Trump spokesman’s comment that “Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers.” The Post failed to note there is no such “economic bloodbath” in the industry under Biden’s policies now, and that U.S. autoworkers are better off today than they were under Trump. [The Washington Post, 3/16/24]
  • The Associated Press: “Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said that Trump had clearly been talking about the impact of a second Biden term on the auto industry and broader economy.” The AP article also failed to mention any details about the current state of the auto industry, but did report that “Trump repeatedly noted his difficulty reading from his teleprompters, which could be seen visibly whipping in 35-mile-per-hour wind gusts.” [The Associated Press, 3/17/24]
  • Politico: “Defenders of the former president say he was speaking about the plight of the auto industry.” The article included quotes on the Sunday shows from Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who all highlighted the supposed context of the purportedly imperiled auto industry. [Politico, 3/17/24]
  • CNN: “The Trump campaign shot back Saturday night, saying the former president was speaking about autoworkers.” “‘Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers,’ Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said.” [CNN, 3/17/24]
  • The Sunday political talk shows failed to clarify the point that the U.S. auto industry is doing better now than it did under Trump. Transcripts show that the hosts never raised this point, instead getting hung up on what the word “bloodbath” might be referring to. [ABC, This Week, 3/17/24; CBS, Face The Nation, 3/17/24; CNN, State of the Union, 3/17/24; NBC, Meet The Press, 3/17/24]
  • The New York Times carried Trump’s social media post claiming that media outlets “fully understood that I was simply referring to imports allowed by Crooked Joe Biden, which are killing the automobile industry.” The Times failed to note that nothing is “killing” the U.S. auto industry, which is in better shape now than when Trump was president. [The New York Times, 3/18/24]
With research contributions from Ilana Berger

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Biden Tax Proposal Provokes Right-Wing Defense Of 'Trickle-Down Economics'

Biden Tax Proposal Provokes Right-Wing Defense Of 'Trickle-Down Economics'

After President Joe Biden called for an end to “trickle-down economics” and promoted a vision of the U.S. in which the wealthy “pay their fair share” of taxes during his March 7 State of the Union address, conservative media figures defended the discredited economic model and decried the president's call to tax the rich.

But experts reacting to Biden's speech noted that the president was correct when he argued that tax cuts for the rich have been a policy failure. Multiple studies examining decades of “trickle-down economics” show that such policies have overwhelmingly benefited the rich.

Biden called for the end of “trickle-down economics” policies that don't help the middle class

During his State of the Union address, Biden laid out a vision of the future in which corporations and wealthy individuals pay “their fair share” of taxes and the U.S. abandons the myth of “trickle-down economics.”

“I want to talk about the future of possibilities that we can build together. A future where the days of trickle-down economics are over, and the wealthy and the biggest corporations no longer get all the tax breaks.”

Biden added: “I grew up in a home where trickle-down economics didn’t put much on my dad’s kitchen table. That’s why I determined to turn things around, so the middle class does well. When they do well, the poor have a way up, and the wealthy still do very well. We all do well.”

Later in the speech, Biden called on Congress to “make the tax code fair” by making “big corporations, the very wealthy, finally begin to pay their fair share.” Biden emphasized that making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of taxes is vital to “the question of fundamental fairness for all Americans.”

He called out the Trump administration, which “enacted a $2 trillion tax cut, overwhelmingly benefit[ing] the top 1% — the very wealthy and the biggest corporations — and exploded the federal deficit.”

Biden also called for raising the corporate minimum tax rate “to at least 21%” and for a “minimum tax for billionaires at 25%.”

Economic research backs up Biden's criticism of failed “trickle-down” policies

Experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities validated the president’s critique of tax breaks for the wealthy — especially those created by Trump’s unpopular 2017 legislation, officially known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Chuck Marr, CBPP's vice president of federal tax policy, noted: “As President Biden is highlighting, the Trump tax law was skewed to the rich, was extremely expensive, and failed to trickle-down.”

Marr added: “The corporate tax rate cut is Exhibit A: the benefits went to executives, not workers.”

CBPP President Sharon Parrott posted: “The President is right. We need to raise revenues on high income households and corporations to make high-value investments in people, communities, and the economy and to improve our fiscal outlook.”

Center for Economic and Policy Research senior economist Dean Baker noted during the speech that “Republicans are upset that Biden has made taxes mandatory for the rich, not just ordinary people.”

The official CEPR account on X also explained that the wealthiest Americans have already stopped paying taxes into Social Security for this year, because the payroll tax does not apply on income above $168,600.

“Millionaires stopped paying into #SocialSecurity 5 days ago,” the post read. “We’re glad @POTUS called out the rigged tax system, which puts the burden of paying for #SocialSecurity on working-class people. #ScrapTheCap so the rich pay their fair share.”

Melissa Boteach, vice president for income security and child care at the National Women’s Law Center, posted that Biden was “hitting it out of the park on tax fairness. Policies to #taxtherich are fundamental to investing in our families and are HUGELY popular across” political parties.

“Trickle-down economics” has further enriched the wealthy and increased national debt

  • A 2012 Congressional Research Service report, which analyzed tax cuts for the rich since 1945, concluded that tax cuts for the wealthy don’t stimulate economic growth. A September 2012 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service determined that “changes over the past 65 years to the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth,” adding, “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.” The report further concluded that these tax cuts served to exacerbate economic inequality, stating that ”top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with increasing concentrations of income at the top of the income distribution." The CRS report dealt such a heavy blow to trickle-down economic orthodoxy that Senate Republicans fought to suppress the report's findings. The report was eventually revised and re-released months later and featured most of the same conclusions. [Congressional Research Service, 9/14/12, 12/12/12; The New York Times, 11/1/12; NBC News, 12/13/12]
  • A 2020 study analyzed the effects of tax cuts for the rich spanning “five decades in 18 wealthy nations” and found that “the rich got richer and there was no meaningful effect on unemployment or economic growth.” Researchers at The London School of Economics and Political Science published a working paper in 2020 analyzing the tax regimes of 18 major developed economies that concluded that “major reforms reducing taxes on the rich lead to higher income inequality as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income.” In a later interview with LSE’s economics blog, one of the researchers who conducted the study added: “Our results align pretty closely with some work from Thomas Piketty, that would suggest that what happens if you cut taxes on the rich is that they then bargain more aggressively for their own compensation at the direct expense of workers lower down the income distribution.” [LSE International Inequalities Institute, December 2020; The London School of Economics, 1/24/23]
  • A new study of Trump's 2017 tax cuts for the rich found it produced wage gains far below what was promised and that, instead of paying for itself as Republicans promised, it added “more than $100 billion a year” to the national debt. The New York Times reported that the study “found the cuts delivered wage gains that were ‘an order of magnitude below’ what Trump officials predicted: about $750 per worker per year on average over the long run, compared to promises of $4,000 to $9,000 per worker.” [The New York Times, 3/4/24; National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2024]
  • Economists predicted in 2016 that Trump's “nonsense … supply-side, trickle-down economics” would do nothing to help the economy. After Trump unveiled his tax and economic policy proposals in August 2016, economists and tax policy experts from across the political spectrum slammed his plan. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich dismissed Trump's plan as the “normal nonsense of supply-side, trickle-down economics” characteristic of Republican politicians. Conservative tax analyst Ryan Ellis noted that Trump’s proposed deduction for child-care expenses “would provide no benefit to low income workers and single parents who are unlikely to have any tax liability to begin with.” University of Michigan economist Betsey Stevenson posted that “Trump's economic plan focuses in on those he thinks need the most help: the 540 billionaires in the U.S.” [Media Matters, 8/9/16]

Right-wing media responded by defending failed tax cut policies and rejecting Biden’s take

    • Fox & Friends First co-host Todd Piro: “The dirty little secret” is “if you tax corporations more, jobs will go away.” Pirro continued: “At the end of the day, corporations are going to hit that number … whether it comes through increased output or at the sake of you and our jobs.” Pirro also dismissed “the typical tropes of tax the rich, who, in reality, pay most if not close to all of the taxes in this country.” Fox financial contributor Cheryl Casone interjected, “50%.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends First, 3/8/24]
    • National Review senior writer Noah Rothman defended “trickle-down economics” from Biden’s critique. National Review posted on X (formerly known as Twitter): “@NoahCRothman: Biden indicts ‘trickle-down economics’ because it did little to help his family when he was growing up. But Biden grew up in the 1950s and early 60s, when the top marginal tax rates approached 50%. Which is to say that Joe Biden did not, in fact, grow up during a period typified by ‘trickle-down economics.’” [Twitter/X, 3/7/24]
    • National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin: “Biden’s rants against ‘trickle down economics’ have not changed a whit since he was singing this tune throughout the Reagan years, railing against growth and prosperity.” [Twitter/X, 3/7/24]
    • Fox Business host Charles Payne: “The top 1.0% pay almost 50% of income taxes...what is fair? What is punitive? It’s all deflection from runaway spending.” [Twitter/X, 3/7/24]
    • Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade: “Love the class warfare…let’s simplify the tax code to make Americans hate rich people …what a unifier!!…lets make rich people pay more to taxes so they can stop hiring people and buying buildings, cars, planes and give to charities.” [Twitter/X, 3/7/24]
    • Committee to Unleash Prosperity President Phil Kerpen: “The tax share of the rich is by far the highest it has ever been under the Trump tax cuts. Biden's tax hikes will harm the economy and reduce the share paid by the rich. It happens every time.” [Twitter/X, 3/7/24]

    Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

    Maria Bartiromo

    Fox Hosts Roar In Defense Of Credit Card 'Junk Fees'

    Some in right-wing media are criticizing the Biden administration for creating an interagency strike force to crack down on what it described as “unfair and illegal pricing” schemes, including enforcing a new federal rule that would cap credit card late fees for major credit card companies at $8 and save tens of millions of Americans billions of dollars annually.

    • The Biden administration is cracking down on “unfair and illegal” price gouging by major corporations
      • On March 5, President Biden launched a “Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing” co-chaired by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. Biden launched an interagency strike force to tackle “unfair and illegal” price increases by large corporations, which according to CNBC “Biden sees as a major reason why consumers are not yet feeling the impact of cooling inflation rates and a strong economy.” FTC Chair Lina Khan announced to reporters that the strike force “builds on the FTC’s far-reaching work to promote competition and tackle unlawful business practices that are inflating costs for Americans.” [The White House, 3/5/24; CNBC, 3/5/24]
      • The strike force's launch coincides with a new CFPB restriction that caps credit card late fees at $8. Citing CFPB data, the New York Times reported that such late fees “have become a major profit source for credit card issuers, generating more than $14 billion in 2022.” According to the Times, the bureau also indicated that credit card issuers have been exploiting a loophole in a 2010 Federal Reserve rule that allowed credit card issuers to adjust late fees based on inflation and raised “their fees far beyond the actual costs they incur when payments arrive late." NPR noted that “by law, the fees are supposed to be tied to a credit card issuer's own costs associated with the late payment,” but the bureau “found that even as banks have adopted cheaper processes for dealing with late payments, the fees have continued to climb.” [The New York Times, 3/5/24; NPR, 3/5/24]
      • CFPB: An estimated 45 million Americans who incur late fees will save an average of $220 each year — a total savings of $10 billion annually — by capping credit card late fees. “For over a decade, credit card giants have been exploiting a loophole to harvest billions of dollars in junk fees from American consumers,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said of the bureau’s move to cap late fees. “Today's rule ends the era of big credit card companies hiding behind the excuse of inflation when they hike fees on borrowers and boost their own bottom lines.” The bureau's press release stated that the rule applies “to the largest credit card issuers, those with more than 1 million open accounts," which “account for more than 95% of total outstanding credit card balances.” [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 3/5/24]

      • A February 2023 poll found “overwhelming bipartisan support” for capping credit card late fees to $8. According to the poll conducted by progressive research group Navigator, 79% of registered voters supported the Biden administration “lowering the limit credit card companies can charge per late fee from $41 to $8.” Those numbers included 74% of independents and 68% of Republicans. [Navigator, 3/2/23]
      • Potential Trump VP pick Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) is trying to block the rule capping credit card late fees. Bloomberg reported that “Senator Tim Scott, a potential Trump vice presidential pick and the top Republican on the Banking Committee, said Tuesday he would push the Senate to take action to block the new regulation” through a Senate vote via the Congressional Review Act. “It will decrease the availability of credit card products for those who need it most, raise rates for many borrowers who carry a balance but pay on time, and increase the likelihood of late payments across the board,” Scott argued in a public statement. [Bloomberg, 3/5/24]
    • Conservative media responded to Biden's efforts to save Americans money by attacking him and the new CFPB rule
      • Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo repeatedly accused Biden of prioritizing reducing credit card late fees over other issues. On March 5, Bartiromo criticized Biden for “what the president is spending his time doing.” Bartiromo said, “This morning he's [President Biden] talking about late fees, and he's talking about corporate America, and it's companies' fault that people are facing inflation.” The next day, Bartiromo continued this line of attack: “We have so many serious priorities,” she said. “I mean a woman is dead because she was murdered by an illegal migrant in Georgia and now we're talking about late fees.” [Fox Business, Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, 3/5/24, 3/6/24]
      • On Newsmax, conservative economist Peter Morici accused Biden of initiating the cap on late fees as a scheme to buy votes. At first, Morici downplayed the number of Americans the new rule would help, before adding: “Think about who's always paying late fees. They're probably the kind of folks that would vote for Democrats. This is a way of motivating them to go out and vote,” he said. “This administration is now getting desperate looking at the polls, and they're looking at every conceivable way to buy a vote.” Morici later compared the rule to Soviet-era price fixing. “If you want the government setting prices, then let’s resurrect the old Soviet Union," he said. [Newsmax, The National Report, 3/5/24]
      • Outkick host Tomi Lahren: “We have an invasion at our southern border that is costing our country billions, and your sleepy President is going after junk fees. Unbelievable.” [Twitter/X, 3/5/24]
    • WSJ editorial: “The Biden ‘Strike Force’ Is Coming for You.” Instead of blaming credit card companies for charging consumers exorbitant fees, The Wall Street Journal's editorial board characterized the CFPB rule as a “burdensome government regulation,” adding that “such fees have proliferated under Mr. Biden because business costs have increased.” Even though the new rule is expected to save consumers billions, the editorial board concluded that “The Biden Presidency is becoming more expensive for Americans by the day.” [The Wall Street Journal, 3/5/24]
    • Fox's The Five mockingly described the new initiative as Biden’s “shrinkflation” strike force. After The Five co-host Jeanine Pirro opened a segment by criticizing Biden for the new strike force, co-host Dana Perino piled on, saying, “This is a brainless decision.” She added: “The market is the strike force. But if Biden is interested in doing this, you could look at all of the issues that we're talking about in terms of where he is polling badly. Why is there no strike force to go after the border? How about, could we have a strike force to bring home hostages who are being held in Gaza? What about a strike force on fixing COVID learning loss? I mean we could go on and on.” [Fox News, The Five, 3/5/24]
    • Fox's The Story portrayed the Biden administration’s attempt to rein in illegal and unfair price increases as an attempt to “squash capitalism.” “I was reading a piece this morning about how capitalism is the defining characteristic that sets this country apart from all of our enemies,” Fox host Martha MacCallum said. “So if you squash capitalism, you're going to put that into remission.” Fox Business host Brian Brenberg added, “This is the anti-rich, anti-wealth crusade that they're [Democrats are] on.” [Fox News, The Story, 3/5/24]

    Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

    George Santos

    Right-Wing Pundits Yearning For Santos After Special Election Defeat

    Conservative media figures are expressing regret for the expulsion of disgraced former Rep. George Santos (R-NY) following the Democratic victory in last night’s special election to fill his seat. Many of them are blaming Republican congressional leadership and GOP institutions for creating an opening for Democrats to retake a seat in the U.S. House by allowing Santos to be expelled, ignoring political reporting that immigration was a key issue in the race after right-wing media and former President Donald Trump helped the GOP sink a bipartisan immigration deal just a week prior to the election.

    • A Democrat won the special election for Santos’ House seat
      • Democrat Tom Suozzi won the New York special election to fill the seat left vacant after Santos was expelled from the House. From The Associated Press: “Suozzi defeated Republican Mazi Pilip to take the seat that was left vacant when George Santos, also a Republican, was expelled from Congress. The victory marks a return to Washington for Suozzi, who represented the district for three terms before giving it up to run, unsuccessfully, for governor.” [The Associated Press, 2/14/24]
      • Congress voted on December 1, 2023, to expel Santos — who faces multiple criminal charges — in a bipartisan 311-114 vote over campaign finance violations, fraudulent schemes, and blatant lies outlined in a House Ethics Committee report. The first-term GOP representative, who announced he would not seek reelection following the report, is also facing a 23-count federal indictment and a Justice Department investigation into the allegations — which include misusing campaign funds to pay for Botox and OnlyFans, “a subscription-based website where people sell adult content.” [The Associated Press, 12/1/23; CBS, 11/16/23; CNN, 11/16/23]
    • Immigration was a key issue in the special election, and right-wing media just pushed the GOP to sink a bipartisan immigration bill
      • The New York Times reported that Suozzi “went on the attack” when his opponent “condemned a bipartisan Senate deal that included stiff border security provisions that conservatives had demanded.” [The New York Times, 2/13/24]
      • Analyzing the special election’s aftermath, The Washington Post noted, “The GOP’s immigration focus didn’t work” — in part because Suozzi supported immigration reforms while his opponent “echoed GOP attacks” against “the bipartisan Senate deal that Republicans ultimately torpedoed last week.” [The Washington Post, 2/13/24]

        • The Hill: Suozzi’s opponent “centered much of her campaign messaging around immigration as the issue received widespread attention both nationwide and in the district.” The Hill reported that polling found the district’s voters “considered immigration more important than any other issue.” [The Hill,2/14/24]
        • Conservative media pushed multiple myths about immigration and a bipartisan Senate bill to convince Republicans to kill it. After relentless opposition from conservative media, former President Donald Trump, and House Republicans, GOP senators on February 7 blocked a compromise bill that extracted major immigration policy concessions from Democrats in exchange for security aid for Ukraine and other U.S. allies. In the days and weeks leading up to the bill’s defeat, conservative media pushed multiple myths about the border deal to stir up enough opposition to block it — even though the bill itself was negotiated by conservative Sen. James Lankford (R-OK). [Media Matters, 2/12/24]
        • Conservative media attacked GOP supporters of the bipartisan bill. After the bill’s text was released, right-wing media suggested that supportive lawmakers were betraying their party and constituents. Weeks before the bill was finished, however, right-wing media were already threatening to oust Republicans who worked on the deal. [Media Matters, 2/7/24, 1/19/24]
      • Following the Democratic victory, conservatives criticized Republicans for allowing the expulsion of Santos
        • NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham: “If I were a pol, I would have voted against dumping” Santos. Graham wrote “Santos didn't deserve the seat, but the majority is paper-thin” to justify keeping Santos in the House. [Twitter/X, 2/14/24]
        • National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin: “I still think the House - both parties - will live to regret breaking longstanding norms to expel Santos.” McLaughlin also criticized the House GOP leadership’s “choice to put a reputation for ethical standards above the party's immediate self-interest.” [Twitter/X, 2/13/24]
        • Conservative talk radio host Bo Snerdley: “Congrats to the Republican Party Republicans threw out Santos and got a Democrat.” [Twitter/X, 2/13/24]
        • Conservative Substack author @amuse: “Unforced Error: The GOP should have allowed Santos to have his day in court before expelling him. We barely could push through an impeachment today - now that he’s been replaced by a Democrat we’d lose that vote tomorrow.” [Twitter/X, 2/13/24]
      • Right-wing online show host Benny Johnson: “The outcome of expelling George Santos: Democrats gain a seat. Republicans are useless and are addicted to losing.” [Twitter/X, 2/13/24]
      • Students for Trump founder Ryan Fournier: “They removed George Santos and a Democrat takes the seat. Pathetic.” Fournier added in a follow-up post, “GUT THE RNC.” [Twitter/X, 2/13/24, 2/13/24]
      • Daily Wire host Michael Knowles: “We kicked George Santos out of Congress for some reason and, you’re going to be shocked to hear it, a Democrat won his seat.” Knowles complained that “we kicked out a Republican congressman because he’s a weirdo” and, after going off on a racist tangent against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), said: “You’re going to give up potentially a razor-thin Republican majority — for what? To stand on the principles that no one applies?” [The Daily Wire, The Michael Knowles Show, 2/14/24]
      • Fox & Friends host Lawrence Jones: “The real problem, guys, is, why did they give up the seat to begin with?” Jones added: “I understand people have criticism, rightfully, of George Santos. But you should allow the voters to decide. Instead, the Democrats stay together again, and Republicans voted to get rid of one of their members. Great job, now you’ve lost the seat, and you can't get anything passed.” Jones’ co-hosts followed up by explaining that Santos was a fraud and the ethics report on him was damning. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 2/14/24]

    Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

    Why Won't Media Report Basic Facts About Trump's Colorado Ballot Debacle?

    Why Won't Media Report Basic Facts About Trump's Colorado Ballot Debacle?

    News organizations have a duty to get specific facts correct in their coverage of the explosive news that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled former President Donald Trump ineligible to serve as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for “overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection” on January 6, 2021. These facts include that Republican voters — not Democrats — were behind the challenge to Trump’s candidacy and conservative legal theorists supported it; that the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of insurrectionists from serving in federal office requires no conviction and is self-executing; and that Trump received proper due process throughout the district court trial and Supreme Court hearing.

    Colorado Republican primary voters were the driving force behind the challenge to Trump’s ballot qualifications, and conservative legal theorists supported it

    • Six Colorado voters — four Republicans and two independents — sued to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot to ensure only “qualified candidate[s]” could receive votes. The New York Times reported that these voters “argued that Mr. Trump’s presence on the Republican primary ballot would harm them by siphoning support from their preferred candidates and, if he won the nomination, by depriving them of the ability ‘to vote for a qualified candidate in the general election.’” [The New York Times, 12/19/23]
    • Multiple conservative legal experts and scholars have argued that Trump is disqualified from the presidency. J. Michael Luttig, who co-wrote an essay in The Atlantic titled “The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again,” formerly worked in the Reagan White House counsel’s office, clerked for conservative judges (including former Justice Antonin Scalia), and was appointed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President George H.W. Bush. Two conservative law professors who published a paper concluding that Trump is ineligible to serve as president, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas, are both “active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.” [The Washington Post, 7/2/98; The Atlantic, 8/19/23; The New York Times, 8/10/23]

    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing, requires no conviction, and applies to both insurrectionists and people who have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists

    • The text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment makes no mention of a conviction. The text reads: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” [United States Congress, accessed 12/20/23]
    • J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe: “The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the U.S. Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again.” They continued in their Atlantic essay, citing Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election: “Both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.” [The Atlantic, 8/19/23]
    • William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen argued that “Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress.” Their paper’s abstract adds, “It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.” [University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 8/14/23]
    • Baude and Paulsen also explained that Section 3 “in particular … disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.” The abstract adds, “Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as ‘aid or comfort.’” [University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 172, 8/14/23]

    Trump was afforded due process in the Colorado legal decisions

    • Trump’s team called on seven witnesses during a weeklong Colorado district court trial. According to The New York Times, Trump’s witness list consisted of former Defense Department chief of staff Kashyap Patel, former campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson, Republican activist Amy Kremer, Thomas Van Flein, who is the chief of staff to Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Colorado Republican Party treasurer Tom Bjorklund, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), and law professor Robert J. Delahunty. [The New York Times, 12/19/23]
    • Colorado Newsline reported that the district court case included “more than 30 hours of evidentiary proceedings, witness testimony and closing arguments.” [Colorado Newsline, 11/17/23]
    • The district court verdict was appealed by both sides to the Colorado Supreme Court, which held a two-hour hearing during which Trump’s team was able to make its case. [Colorado Newsline, 12/6/23]
    • The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling concluded that the legal process that resulted in Trump’s barring from the primary ballot “provide[s] adequate due process.” [The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, 12/19/23]

    Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.