Tuesday, March 31, 2026
■ Today's Top News
“If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment. Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion."
By Stephen Prager
As billionaires nationwide rally to stop tax increases on the wealthy, US Sen. Bernie Sanders stepped in to “clear things up” for one of Wall Street’s top power brokers after he railed against the proposal.
Following in the footsteps of California, where a popular ballot initiative to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state’s 200 billionaires has gained steam, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced their own federal proposal earlier this month to tax those with net worths of more than $1 billion 5% of their annual household wealth.
The proposal is projected to raise $4.4 trillion over the next decade to provide direct payments to lower-income Americans, reverse Republicans’ cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act spending, expand Medicare, and build millions of affordable housing units, among many other expenditures.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who is worth about $2.8 billion according to Forbes, appeared on Fox News on Tuesday and was asked by anchor Brian Kilmeade about Sanders’ frequent accusations that billionaires “don’t pay their fair share” in taxes.
“I don’t know what he means by fair share,” Dimon said. “I’ve listened to that my whole life, and I don’t know what he means.”
The two did not address the facts that may have led Sanders to draw such a conclusion. For instance, the senator often notes that fewer than 1,000 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the US, around 175 million people.
Those billionaires also manage to pay a lower effective tax rate than the average American by wielding loopholes that allow them to exempt large chunks of their fortunes.
Sanders took to social media to respond to Dimon’s incredulity about his idea of “fairness.”
“Ok, Jamie: Let me clear things up for you,” the senator wrote. “If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment.”
“Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion,” Sanders added. “Seems pretty fair to me.”
Dimon’s remarks came as billionaires are in a full-blown panic over the proposal for a one-time 5% tax in California, which is projected to raise about $100 billion, mostly to cover the Medicaid funding shortfall caused by the massive cuts in last year’s GOP budget law.
A poll earlier this month showed that the measure, which will be put to voters in November, has about 2-1 approval, despite a more than $80 million effort by the state’s elite—most notably Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—to stop it in its tracks.
Dimon himself is not known to have contributed to the effort. But during his Tuesday appearance on Fox, he echoed one of the movement’s oft-used talking points: that raising taxes on the rich leads to an “exodus” of wealth from financial hubs like New York and California.
As Forbes senior contributor Teresa Ghilarducci explained late last year, “Decades of economic research show that billionaire ‘flight’ is rare, exaggerated, and often confused with tax avoidance through accounting maneuvers rather than physical relocation.”
Christopher Marquis and Nick Romeo similarly said last month in a piece for TIME that “despite multiple debunkings, the ‘millionaire exodus’ panic remains a popular narrative,” even though it is “frequently based on biased or sloppy arguments where anecdote replaces systematic evidence, correlation poses as causation, and every modest redistributive proposal is framed as an existential threat to prosperity.”
“This is not just a policy shift—it’s a wholesale abandonment of government commitments to the American public," said one advocate.
By Julia Conley
The so-called “Make America Healthy Again” movement encapsulated a key campaign promise ahead of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, with Trump telling one Pennsylvania crowd in 2024, “We’re going to get toxic chemicals out of our environment, and we’re going to get them out of our food supply.”
But the Trump administration has gradually announced a slew of public health-related policies and proposals since the president took office—pushing to loosen emissions rules for the cancer-causing gas ethylene oxide; suggesting the polio vaccine should be optional; and mandating the production of carcinogenic glyphosate—and a peer-reviewed study has now cataloged the “grave threat to America’s health” that Trump’s policies present.
“During the first administration of President Donald Trump, nearly 100 environmental and occupational protections, including air-quality safeguards, were rescinded,” reads the study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on March 25. “Although many of those rescissions were delayed by litigation or reversed by President Joe Biden, they inflicted considerable harm on Americans’ health. The second Trump administration’s actions have been even more aggressive, portending greater harm.”
Weeks after the US Senate confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy in February 2025—a confirmation that he secured after making the baseless claim that Americans would prefer the for-profit insurance system over universal healthcare and refusing to reject debunked claims about vaccines—the administration appeared to make clear its true views on public health when it announced 31 climate regulation rollbacks.
“Those initiatives and other administration actions are set to reverse progress on pollution, make workplaces more dangerous, and (in Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin’s words) drive ‘a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion,’” reads the study.
The proposals swiftly introduced by the administration included:
- Loosening standards for particulate matter 2.5 pollution, which killed approximately 460,000 people in the US from 1999 to 2020;
- Ending subsidies for clean energy production under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act;
- Weakening tailpipe emissions standards, putting Americans at greater risk for cardiopulmonary mortality and climate crisis risks; and
- Delaying implementation of stronger silica rules for coal miners—putting them at risk for black lung disease—while also demanding that coal plants continue production.
Ken Cook, co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the study described “a deliberate dismantling of safeguards that protect the air, water, and health of nearly every person in this country—all in the service of polluters.”
“This is not just a policy shift—it’s a wholesale abandonment of government commitments to the American public and the MAHA movement that helped propel Trump into office,” said Cook, who did not contribute to the study.
Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and public health physician who directs the Global Observatory on Planetary Health at Boston College and is the lead author of the paper, told EWG that the “impacts of these rollbacks will fall most heavily on the most vulnerable among us—including infants—resulting in brain injury, neurodevelopmental disorders, increased preterm births, and elevated lifelong risk of chronic disease.”
Children and other vulnerable populations, including those in low-income communities situated close to petrochemical industrial areas, are likely to have increased mercury, benzene, and arsenic exposures—raising their risk of developing cancers and other diseases—due to the Trump administration’s rollbacks, according to the study.
“Several proposed policies would weaken water-quality standards, reducing drinking-water safety for millions of people,” reads the paper. “For example, the EPA seeks to weaken regulations governing effluent discharges from coal-fired power plants. The resulting increase in waterborne lead, mercury, and arsenic will increase the incidence of bladder cancers and adversely affect children’s cognitive function.”
The study’s authors emphasized that “statistics and documentation are not enough” to protect the public from the White House’s harmfiul policies.
“Unless health professionals speak up, and unless we put a human face on the tragic consequences of these environmental rollbacks, the connection between these seemingly abstract policy changes and the real health harms they cause may remain invisible,” reads the study. “We health professionals must call urgent attention to this silent but deadly assault on Americans’ health, work with broad coalitions to halt it, and ultimately rebuild the agencies, protections, and shared sense of trust and responsibility that have given us clean air and water and enabled us and our children to live longer, healthier lives.”
Cook noted that the NEJM itself has been a target of the administration, with Kennedy calling highly respected, science-based journals “corrupt” and the Department of Justice questioning the publication’s editorial integrity.
“No amount of political pressure or intimidation should silence independent science or the experts working to protect public health,” Cook said. “The NEJM and the study’s authors rightly ignore those threats and lay bare the real-world consequences of the Trump administration’s actions—and the American people deserve to hear it.”
"Hiring was ice cold in February," said one economist.
By Brad Reed
New data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Tuesday continued to show weakness in the American jobs market.
The latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) shows that the number of new hires in February decreased to 4.8 million, which was roughly 400,000 fewer hires than were recorded in February 2025.
The report also shows that the US hiring rate in February fell to just 3.1%, which is the lowest rate since April 2020, when the economy was shut down due to the global Covid-19 pandemic.
The good news in the report is that the number of quits and layoffs remained relatively steady, meaning that people who already have jobs are retaining them at a healthy clip.
But Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that these bad hiring numbers came before President Donald Trump launched an illegal war with Iran, which has since destabilized global energy markets and raised prices for oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel.
“This is a hiring recession,” Long wrote in a social media post. “And Americans are feeling it. There were notable hiring pullbacks in February in hospitality and construction. Bottom line: The job market was already frozen before the war in Iran began. It’s worrying that a ‘no hire, no fire’ situation could turn into a ‘no hire, start to fire’ job market quickly if there isn’t a resolution soon.”
Long’s analysis was echoed by Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at hiring site Indeed, who wrote in a research note flagged by Axios that hiring in the US “was stuck in neutral going into this [Iran] conflict,” and “getting it into gear just got harder” thanks to the war.
Guy Berger, director of economic research at the Burning Glass Institute, noted that hiring rates in the US hit 3.1% or lower the last two times the country was in a severe recession.
“3.1% is not only comparable to the Covid low point—it’s also comparable to late 2009 and early 2010, when the unemployment rate was around 10%,” Berger explained. “Hiring was ice cold in February.”
Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who has been a harsh critic of Trump’s tariffs, found that the February JOLTS report wiped out an unexpected January increase in manufacturing job openings that the president’s allies attributed to his trade policies.
“Alas, the perils of cherry-picking,” Lincicome commented.
The new data on hiring in the US job market comes weeks after a BLS report estimated that the economy lost 92,000 jobs in February. On the whole, the American economy has posted a net loss of jobs since Trump announced his “liberation day” global tariffs in April 2025.
“This isn’t about advancing the interests of retirement savers, it is about opening a new profit center for crypto and Wall Street," said one critic.
By Jake Johnson
US President Donald Trump’s Labor Department on Monday unveiled a proposal that would welcome private equity and cryptocurrency investments into Americans’ 401(k) plans, the culmination of an aggressive Wall Street lobbying push that could leave the retirement savings of millions vulnerable to the wild swings of so-called “alternative assets.”
The proposed rule, now subject to a public comment period, was issued at the direction of a Trump executive order from last year that was characterized at the time as “the holy grail for private equity.”
In addition to giving employers a green light to include private equity and crypto investments in 401(k) plans offered to workers, the new rule would establish a “safe harbor” allowing retirement account administrators to avoid legal action from employees who believe their funds were steered into excessively risky products.
“The legal immunity created by this safe harbor will incentivize financial advisers to pitch these toxic products, which will become ticking time bombs in tens of millions of retirement accounts, which will no doubt result in significant losses,” warned Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at the advocacy group Better Markets. “There are good reasons why 401(k) plans have been considered closed to private markets and cryptocurrencies, and those reasons have not changed. The only thing that has changed is the administration’s support for these industries and regulators’ willingness to do their bidding.”
“This is no reason to endanger the retirement savings of millions of Americans,” Schiffrin added.
Oscar Valdés Viera, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, similarly warned that “opening 401(k)s to these products risks turning workers’ retirement savings into a Ponzi-like scheme that throws a lifeline to an industry scrambling for fresh cash.”
“This isn’t about advancing the interests of retirement savers, it is about opening a new profit center for crypto and Wall Street,” said Viera. “Retirement savers should not be bailing out these high-risk industries and subsidizing the Wall Street and crypto billionaire class.”
“Private equity firms should not get a free pass to loot workers’ 401(k) retirement savings.”
Americans currently hold over $10 trillion combined in 401(k) plans, a huge trove of wealth that the private equity industry has been working for years to access. The Labor Department indicated that its proposed rule would apply to over 720,000 retirement plans covering roughly 118 million workers.
The American Prospect reported Tuesday that the managers of private equity firms are “already pressuring companies, third-party administrators, and the consultants who advise them to list their offerings” among workers’ retirement plan options.
“One staffer at an institutional investor who is not authorized to speak to the media told the Prospect about their primary worry: that private equity will stick their most overvalued companies into continuation funds exclusively for 401(k) plan holders, or ‘retail investors,’ as they are known,” the outlet continued. “Private credit firms are retailoring their funds for 401(k) plans as well, and some of the biggest have already struck deals with asset managers like Voya and Vanguard. ‘I’d be shocked if the industry doesn’t attempt to dump their garbage onto retail,’ the staffer said.”
One recent analysis by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) found that private equity funds for retail investors “dramatically underperformed publicly listed stock indexes” in 2025 while charging much higher fees.
Jim Baker, PESP’s executive director, said Monday that “private equity firms should not get a free pass to loot workers’ 401(k) retirement savings.”
“The bar for including private equity in 401(k)s should be extremely high,” said Baker. “Private equity funds have lagged public markets while charging much higher fees, and public pension funds are pulling back from the asset class. Instead, this rule risks shifting more financial risk onto workers who rely on their retirement savings for long-term security.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also ripped the Labor Department rule, saying in a statement that “Americans facing an uncertain future in Trump’s economy will now have more reasons to question the security of their retirement savings—all so that Trump’s Wall Street buddies have another pile of cash to play with.”
“Anyone who cares about the financial security of working people,” said Warren, “should oppose this proposed rule.”
"This administration cannot recklessly play God with our shared American heritage at Secretary Hegseth's arbitrary say-so," said one conservationist.
By Jessica Corbett
The Trump administration’s so-called “God Squad” swiftly came under fire from conservationists on Tuesday after voting unanimously for an “unprecedented” exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore policies intended to protect endangered species.
In the lead-up to the snap meeting, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in a Washington, DC federal court, and the administration confirmed in a filing last week that US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who chairs the Endangered Species Committee, organized the gathering at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s request.
The closed-door but livestreamed meeting proceeded as scheduled after a federal judge declined to block it. The New York Times reported Tuesday that as protesters rallied outside the Department of the Interior, Hegseth told the panel inside that “when development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country.”
“Recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative,” Hegseth claimed, though he emphasized that the administration’s position on the matter preceded President Donald Trump’s war on Iran, which has caused a surge in gasoline prices.
While a spokesperson for the oil and gas industry’s trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, welcomed the vote on regulations for what president calls the Gulf of America, Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, declared that “this amoral action by Pete Hegseth and Trump’s cronies is as horrific as it is illegal, and we’ll overturn it in court.”
The center plans to update its suit to challenge Hegseth’s “unfounded” national security determination and the unlawful exemption granted by the committee on Tuesday.
“Americans overwhelmingly oppose sacrificing endangered whales and other marine life so the fossil fuel industry can get richer,” said Hartl. “This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Trump and his lackeys kowtowing to Big Oil.”
“The fossil fuel industry has certainly gotten its money’s worth from supporting Trump’s reelection. I’m sure CEOs are gleeful about this vote, hoping to make even more money by sacrificing our country’s wildlife and gutting environmental protections,” he added. “When we overturn this heartless, cowardly act by Hegseth and the goons on the extinction committee, it’s important for people to remember who failed to speak out against their actions.”
In addition to Burgum, the panel includes the agriculture and Army secretaries; the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrators; and the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Tuesday was only the fourth time the committee has convened since it was created by Congress nearly five decades ago, according to the Times.
“In a farcical piece of political theater consisting of high-level officials reading scripted remarks and engaging in zero deliberation, the Trump administration stripped America’s wildlife heritage in the Gulf of Mexico of essential protections. The Endangered Species Act has not slowed an iota of oil from being extracted from the Gulf,” Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, said in a post-meeting statement. “I cannot stress enough how unprecedented and unlawful this action is.”
“Invoking national security cannot justify potentially pushing the Rice’s whale—or any of our nation’s irreplaceable wildlife species—into the abyss of extinction,” he asserted. “If this administration were truly concerned about national security, it would focus on what will protect our quality of life and a secure future for all Americans. That includes healthy lands and waters that support people and the wildlife that we love and rely upon.”
Bowman added that “this administration cannot recklessly play God with our shared American heritage at Secretary Hegseth’s arbitrary say-so. We will fight this injustice every step of the way.”
While Trump and his appointees have worked to serve the fossil fuel industry and roll back Endangered Species Act protections throughout both of his terms, Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, suggested that, despite Hegseth’s claims, Tuesday’s meeting was tied to the new war in the Middle East and its consequences around the world.
“Trump’s attempt to use secret meetings to sidestep the law and end key protections is a dangerous precedent by an unpopular administration that failed to understand the consequences of starting a war in the Middle East,” she said. “Using ‘national security’ as justification to take shortcuts with legal requirements is a dangerous move with far-reaching implications.”
“The Endangered Species Act requires that documents and meetings must be open to the public, yet the administration is cloaking this decision in secrecy,” she explained. “Fossil fuel companies are not requesting this waiver, nor is any other industry—instead the Trump administration is using its war in Iran to justify a power grab that will do nothing to lower the price of fuel here in the US.”
The night before the meeting, Save Our Parks projected messages onto the facade of the Interior Department building: “Doug Burgum’s Playing God With America’s Public Lands & Wildlife,” “Burgum’s Censoring Science, History, and the Truth,” and “GOD SQUAD ENTER HERE.”
Jayson O’Neill, a spokesperson for Save Our Parks, said that “Burgum has a ‘god complex’ over America’s parks, public lands, and wildlife. Throughout his entire tenure in the DC swamp, Burgum has used the heavy hand of government to muzzle the truth, limit public participation, strip science from decisions, and even whitewash and censor our history.”
“Now, Burgum and his so-called ‘God Squad’ are continuing this failed leadership, ignoring science and public opinion to serve the interests of his buddies in the oil industry,” he added. “Burgum’s censorship is as unpopular as it is un-American.”
Of the roughly 450 hospitals identified in a new analysis as at risk of closure or service cuts, around 200 are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans.
By Jake Johnson
The unprecedented Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans approved last summer are putting hundreds of hospitals across the country at high risk of cutting services or permanently shutting their doors, a potentially devastating outcome for millions of poor Americans that was repeatedly predicted ahead of time.
The advocacy group Public Citizen released a report Monday identifying 446 hospitals that could be forced to reduce services or close because of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts, which will amount to around $1 trillion over the next decade. The at-risk hospitals collectively served 7 million patients in 2024, according to Public Citizen’s analysis.
Nearly 200 of the hospitals listed in Public Citizen’s report are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans who voted for the Medicaid cuts, and 146 are in states represented by Senate Republicans—nearly all of whom supported the sprawling budget package that included the assault on Medicaid.
“Trump’s cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close,” said Public Citizen researcher Eileen O’Grady, the author of the report. “Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”
The report comes as Republicans are reportedly considering billions of dollars in additional healthcare cuts—and kicking hundreds of thousands more off their health coverage—to help fund Trump’s illegal and increasingly expensive war on Iran.
Public Citizen found in its report that there’s at least one hospital at risk of closing or slashing services in 44 states and Washington, DC. States with the highest proportion of at-risk hospitals are Connecticut, California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, the analysis shows.
“It is notable that while there are more at-risk hospitals in Democrat-led states and congressional districts, a substantial number of hospitals in Republican-led states and congressional districts are threatened by Medicaid cuts,” the report observes. “Almost all congressional Republicans voted to pass the Big Ugly Law.”
Comments
Post a Comment