Donald Trump's Mexico Tax Plan Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Experts warn that Republican plans to tax remittance payments could unintentionally increase migration to the United States.
Why It Matters
House Republicans have added a provision to President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" that would impose a 5 percent excise tax on remittance transfers. The legislation was put forward by the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. The measure, exempting U.S. citizens, would impact more than 40 million people, including green card holders and those on temporary work visas such as H-1B, H-2A, and H-2B.
Remittances are money transfers that individuals send to family or friends in their home country, typically from a country where they are working. Millions of immigrants send money back they earn in the U.S to their home countries.
What To Know
Policy experts are sharply criticizing the proposal, saying it risks backfiring. Rather than deterring migration, as intended, the tax could deepen economic strain in parts of Mexico and Central America that rely on remittances, potentially increasing the pressure on individuals to migrate north in search of work.
"Rather than serving as a deterrent, a remittance tax could actually incentivize more migration. If individuals believe they'll need to earn even more to meet family needs due to the remittance penalty, they may be more likely to come—and stay longer—to offset that financial loss," Veronique de Rugy, George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, told Newsweek.
"Remittances are a lifeline for millions of households in Mexico. In many rural areas, they support basic consumption, education, housing, and small-scale investment," De Rugby said.
"Taxing these transfers effectively reduces household income in those communities, potentially pushing families back into poverty or forcing them to forgo essential spending.
"That, in turn, reduces local demand, suppresses entrepreneurship, and weakens social cohesion in already vulnerable regions."
President Donald Trump signs the guest book after touring the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi on May 16, 2025.
President Donald Trump signs the guest book after touring the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi on May 16, 2025.
Alex Brandon/AP
In 2023 alone, Mexico received more than $66.2 billion in remittances—primarily from individuals working in the United States—accounting for roughly 4 percent of the country's GDP, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
In poorer, rural areas of Mexico with few job opportunities, remittances fund essentials like food, housing, school supplies, and medications. This flow of money often makes it possible for families to remain in their communities rather than risk a dangerous journey north.
"There is no question that such a policy would have an impact on certain communities. Remittances pay for everything, including food, clothes, housing, medications, and school supplies," immigration attorney Hector Quiroga told Newsweek.
"A decrease of any kind will lead to belt tightening as people are forced to choose between two different necessities or do without some things altogether. The resulting economic impact would spread to local businesses, as the supply of cash would decrease overall," he said.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has already rejected the proposal, calling it unjust and harmful to migrant families. She said it "would damage the economy of both nations and is also contrary to the spirit of economic freedom that the U.S. government claims to defend."
Michelle Mittelstadt, director of Communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told Newsweek that it's unclear how much of the remittance flow would be impacted by the proposed tax, since U.S. citizens send some portion. Still, she warned that such a measure could drive people toward unofficial channels.
Experts have argued that the policy could inadvertently increase migration to the U.S. rather than deter it.
"It's a classic case of economic nationalism backfiring," said de Rugy.
"Instead of reducing migration, it may increase the financial desperation that pushes more people to leave home in search of opportunity.
"In addition to being economically harmful, this policy sets a troubling precedent. It penalizes lawful financial behavior, distorts labor markets, and risks damaging diplomatic relations with Mexico—all while doing nothing to meaningfully address border security or fiscal sustainability."
Quiroga echoed those concerns, saying the tax would likely have unintended consequences.
"Some individuals who send remittances to Mexico might conclude that it makes more economic sense to bring family members to the US and support them here rather than send remittances back, remittances that would not be worth as much if taxed at 5 percent," he said.
Others warn that even a small cut to remittance income could have ripple effects in low-income communities. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, takes the opposite view, arguing that the tax might discourage migration by reducing its economic benefit.
Other high-ranking Trump officials have backed the measures.
Vice President JD Vance, then an Ohio senator in 2023, co-sponsored the WIRED Act, which would have imposed a 10 percent fee on remittances out of the U.S.
What People Are Saying
Veronique de Rugy, George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow with the Mercatus Center, told Newsweek: "The logic of the tax assumes migration is driven purely by opportunity, but in reality, many migrants are responding to economic necessity. Making remittances more expensive only increases the pressure to work longer hours, stay for more years, or bring additional family members to the U.S."
Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told Newsweek: "More than $66.2 billion in remittances were received by Mexico, chiefly from individuals living in the U.S., in 2023.
"This represented 4 percent of Mexico's GDP that year. So U.S. taxation on this flow of money sent by individuals to their families and other loved ones in Mexico could have an effect on remittance sending, though it is not clear at this point 1) what share is sent by U.S. citizens and thus would not be subject to this proposed tax; and 2) whether this tax would prompt people to send money through unofficial channels rather than continuing to use formal money transfer routes."
Immigration attorney Hector Quiroga told Newsweek: "I personally don't think that this would have any impact one way or another. While $320 million is a lot of money, the average remittance to Mexico is about $390 per month. Five percent of that is $20. That amount would likely not be enough to dissuade migrants from coming to the United States because the economic opportunity is clearly not available in Mexico, and there really is nowhere else to go."
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the right-wing Center for Immigration Studies, said: "One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home. If that's much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here."
What Happens Next
Critics say the tax is unlikely to stop people from migrating since it does not address the deeper issues driving them to leave, such as poverty and limited job prospects. By cutting into the money families rely on, the policy could worsen conditions in their home countries and push more people to seek work in the U.S.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement
The Verge
an hour ago
- The Verge
A ban on state AI laws could smash Big Tech's legal guardrails
Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump's massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block. Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' say it will help ensure AI companies aren't bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place. 'What this moratorium does is prevent every state in the country from having basic regulations to protect workers and to protect consumers,' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), whose district includes Silicon Valley, tells The Verge in an interview. He warns that as written, the language included in the House-passed budget reconciliation package could restrict state laws that attempt to regulate social media companies, prevent algorithmic rent discrimination, or limit AI deepfakes that could mislead consumers and voters. 'It would basically give a free rein to corporations to develop AI in any way they wanted, and to develop automatic decision making without protecting consumers, workers, and kids.' 'One thing that is pretty certain … is that it goes further than AI' The bounds of what the moratorium could cover are unclear — and opponents say that's the point. 'The ban's language on automated decision making is so broad that we really can't be 100 percent certain which state laws it could touch,' says Jonathan Walter, senior policy advisor at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 'But one thing that is pretty certain, and feels like there is at least some consensus on, is that it goes further than AI.' That could include accuracy standards and independent testing required for facial recognition models in states like Colorado and Washington, he says, as well as aspects of broad data privacy bills across several states. An analysis by nonprofit AI advocacy group Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI) found that a social media-focused law like New York's ' Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act ' could be unintentionally voided by the provision. Center for Democracy and Technology state engagement director Travis Hall says in a statement that the House text would block 'basic consumer protection laws from applying to AI systems.' Even state governments' restrictions on their own use of AI could be blocked. The new Senate language adds its own set of wrinkles. The provision is no longer a straightforward ban, but it conditions state broadband infrastructure funds on adhering to the familiar 10-year moratorium. Unlike the House version, the Senate version would also cover criminal state laws. Supporters of the AI moratorium argue it wouldn't apply to as many laws as critics claim, but Public Citizen Big Tech accountability advocate J.B. Branch says that 'any Big Tech attorney who's worth their salt is going to make the argument that it does apply, that that's the way that it was intended to be written.' Khanna says that some of his colleagues may not have fully realized the rule's scope. 'I don't think they have thought through how broad the moratorium is and how much it would hamper the ability to protect consumers, kids, against automation,' he says. In the days since it passed through the House, even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a staunch Trump ally, said she would have voted against the OBBB had she realized the AI moratorium was included in the massive package of text. California's SB 1047 is the poster child for what industry players dub overzealous state legislation. The bill, which intended to place safety guardrails on large AI models, was vetoed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom following an intense pressure campaign by OpenAI and others. Companies like OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman once advocated for industry regulation, have more recently focused on clearing away rules that they say could stop them from competing with China in the AI race. 'What you're really doing with this moratorium is creating the Wild West' Khanna concedes that there are 'some poorly-crafted state regulations' and making sure the US stays ahead of China in the AI race should be a priority. 'But the approach to that should be that we craft good federal regulation,' he says. With the pace and unpredictability of AI innovation, Branch says, 'to handcuff the states from trying to protect their citizens' without being able to anticipate future harms, 'it's just reckless.' And if no state legislation is guaranteed for a decade, Khanna says, Congress faces little pressure to pass its own laws. 'What you're really doing with this moratorium is creating the Wild West,' he says. Before the Senate Commerce text was released, dozens of Khanna's California Democratic colleagues in the House, led by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), signed a letter to Senate leaders urging them to remove the AI provision — saying it 'exposes Americans to a growing list of harms as AI technologies are adopted across sectors from healthcare to education, housing, and transportation.' They warn that the sweeping definition of AI 'arguably covers any computer processing.' Over 250 state lawmakers representing every state also urge Congress to drop the provision. 'As AI technology develops at a rapid pace, state and local governments are more nimble in their response than Congress and federal agencies,' they write. 'Legislation that cuts off this democratic dialogue at the state level would freeze policy innovation in developing the best practices for AI governance at a time when experimentation is vital.' Khanna warns that missing the boat on AI regulation could have even higher stakes than other internet policies like net neutrality. 'It's not just going to impact the structure of the internet,' he says. 'It's going to impact people's jobs. It's going to impact the role algorithms can play in social media. It's going to impact every part of our lives, and it's going to allow a few people [who] control AI to profit, without accountability to the public good, to the American public.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Andrew Yang Is Ready to Team Up With Elon Musk
Andrew Yang has reached out to Elon Musk with a sales pitch: Let's build a third party together. The former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has been pushing his independent Forward Party for several years — and he sprang into action after Musk's feud with President Donald Trump erupted and Musk polled X users on whether they wanted a new political party. In an interview with POLITICO Magazine, Yang said he hasn't heard back from Musk yet, but he's optimistic. Yang also acknowledged he doesn't agree with Musk about everything, but said that his Forward Party should appeal to those across the political spectrum. And don't forget that Musk had endorsed Yang's previous presidential bid. Enormous hurdles exist to breaking through in America's two-party system. But Yang argued the American public is ready for a change, particularly if the effort gets help from the richest man in the world — who also happens to control a massive social media platform. 'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang said. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly.' This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I saw that you retweeted a post Elon Musk made about needing 'to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle.' Have you reached out directly to Musk about creating a new party or working with your Forward Party? I have reached out, and some mutual friends are also looking to connect us. Have you heard back yet? Not yet, but I assume he's been very busy. We have been of the opinion that America needed a new political party for a number of years, and so waiting another 24 hours is nothing. Is he someone you'd want to work with to build a third party? I want to work with people that recognize that America's political system has gone from dysfunctional to polarizing to even worse. And at this point, the fastest growing political movement in the United States is independents. They feel like neither party represents them, and the two-party system is not delivering what they want to see. And the two of you have seen dysfunction on both sides — you on the Democratic side and Musk on the Republican. If you think about what animates Elon, he wants to get us to Mars, and I feel that he's been driven these last several years by an opposition to 'wokeness,' by what he sees as excessive bureaucracy, and by waste and overspending in the federal government. And in our two-party system, he thought that Trump was the better choice. If you look at Musk's politics over the last number of years, he waited in line to meet Barack Obama, he endorsed me in a Democratic cycle, and even earlier in this cycle — 2024 — he was looking for an alternative to Trump. There are a number of things that I think Elon shares in common with a lot of other folks I talk to who want to see some kind of middle ground or balance. The problem is: In our two-party system, you get whipsawed either one direction or the other. I will say that the deficit in spending, neither party has done a good job of addressing it, because as soon as they're in power, they don't want to make the tough choices. You're coming politically from the center-left; Elon Musk is coming from arguably the hard right. How would you overcome your political differences? If you look at the Forward Party makeup, my co-chairs include Christine Todd Whitman, who was governor of New Jersey and EPA secretary under George W. Bush, and Kerry Healey, who was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. And I would say that the three of us don't line up on every issue, but we're in lockstep on the fact that America's current political system is not delivering real solutions or results, and both parties are captive to perverse incentives. Anyone who wants to modernize and restore the American political system, so that it actually listens to people and communities, we can agree on that. And that is the mission. The fact is that the two parties do a great job of falsely segmenting us along some ideological spectrum, saying, 'Oh, you want this? You're over there. You want this? You're over there,' when in reality the current system is not going to deliver what either of those sides want. Unless what they want is strife and conflict and mistrust. But is that enough to maintain a third party or does there need to be a political or policy goal that propels the party forward? Are there any specific policies that you feel like you agree on with Musk? The three pillars that we're operating on are dignity, dynamism and democracy, which is something that most Americans can get behind. But in practical terms, if you can imagine three or four U.S. senators who are from a new party, they could work with either side to get things done and would become the most powerful legislators in the country, because their votes might be necessary to pass any legislation. And I dare say that you would have a much more interesting and balanced set of solutions as a result. What about his work to dismantle USAID and cause havoc in much of the federal government? Did you agree with that? One thing I found interesting was that a number of moderate Democrats signaled over the last 24 hours that they would be open to receiving Elon as an ally as a result of his feud with Donald Trump, despite him being essentially one of their primary boogeyman over the last number of weeks. I don't have to agree with everyone's past decisions in order to agree that the primary mission has to be getting our political system back in a place where it's actually responsive to both the views and the needs of the American people, and right now, we don't have that. Anyone who's kept up with me over the last number of years knows that I've been driven by the fact that AI is going to transform our economy in ways that push more and more Americans to the side. That is playing out before our eyes right now in real time, with [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei coming out saying that entry-level white collar work is going to be automated, and that we need to think bigger about solutions. I think that Dario is right. I've been making the same case since 2019, 2018. I'd ask anyone who is reading this right now, 'What is the current plan when it comes to the economic changes that are going to be brought by AI?' The answer is, 'Not much.' Because our current political class does not have to address that issue, or any of a panoply of other issues in order to keep power. They have done an expert job of gerrymandering the country into red zones and blue zones, such that all of us are looking up, wondering, 'What the heck is going on?' Speaking of AI, do you think Musk could be a good partner on that? If you look back at the [2020] cycle, he was openly saying that AI was going to have a massive impact, and he did endorse me while I was running as a Democrat on some of those solutions. Musk has become very polarizing to much of the country. Who are the people you think you'd attract if you built a third party with Musk? Again, people have come to the Forward Party from all different walks of life and different ideologies. Elon has a very, very significant following and megaphone, and you can see that with the number of people that have voted on his post about starting a third party. It's about 5.3 million votes, with 81 percent saying yes, it is time to create a new political party, and Forward has gotten thousands of new followers just in the last 24 hours, because we are the preeminent effort to modernize and rationalize America's broken political system. I'm thrilled that others are waking up. Do you think Elon Musk is actually serious about creating a new party? What do you think he wants out of all this? I haven't spoken to Elon recently, but I think there are several things that are animating him, and very, very high on his list is America's financial solvency. I think he's deeply frustrated by the fact that he wanted to reduce waste in government, and then the Republicans turn around and propose a bill that would increase the deficit by two and a half trillion dollars. If your goal is to have the government on a positive fiscal path, that's not the way to do it. I think Elon's frustration is shared by lots of other Americans who realize that when push comes to shove, politicians don't want to make the tough choices that would be necessary to put us on a sustainable path — certainly politicians from the current parties. I saw [JP Morgan CEO and Chair] Jamie Dimon speak the other day, and he seems to share similar concerns and had a number of very sensible proposals. But you realize that it would take a figure, in my view, who's not of the two major parties to make some of these solutions happen. Is that person Elon Musk? I think there are any number of people that if they were to be elected as an independent or a Forward Party member, they would then be able to propose the common-sense solutions that most Americans say we need. One figure that I'm very excited about that recently declared that he was running for governor of Michigan as an independent is [Detroit Mayor] Mike Duggan, who has turned around Detroit, and before that, turned around a hospital chain. Someone like Mayor Duggan would make very sensible choices for the state of Michigan, free of party constraints. You can imagine someone doing that at the national level. Millions of Americans would love to see that happen. I have a feeling that the right independent ticket could galvanize a tremendous amount of energy, because more and more Americans sense that the status quo isn't working and that neither party has our interests at heart or wants to solve the tougher problems. Elon Musk is clearly still very new to politics. Why do you think he knows what it would take to build a third party that could actually overcome all the hurdles that exist in our 2-party system? Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach, as evidenced by the overwhelming response to Elon's poll and to every other poll that shows that not only are half of Americans saying they're independent, but more than two thirds are saying that the current political system is not working. I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly. Just to throw some numbers out to you, there are over 500,000 locally elected officials around the country, and up to 70 percent of those races are not meaningfully contested. Up to 10 percent of those positions go unfilled, and thousands of those positions are technically non-partisan, which includes many, many mayors and county executives. So if the Forward Party were to simply start recruiting and contesting at scale, which you could do with a certain level of resources, you could have thousands, even tens of thousands, of locally elected officials within one cycle. You could have several U.S. senators and a very serious presidential ticket within the next several years. At some point you have to wonder, 'OK, when do the American people raise their hands and say, 'I get it. This system is not meant to deliver good things. It's meant to deliver me thinking that my neighbor is bad and out to get me'?' Eventually, enough of us have to get together and say, let's create a positive, independent political movement that can drive us towards solutions, and also is able to say, 'You and I don't agree on everything, but you're a good person. I believe in your good will.' I don't think that goodness or character are somehow confined to any one party or another. I don't think that people on the opposite side are my enemies, and let's create a system that actually will make us feel good about our future. Even if every last measure does not line up with me, I know that the people who are adopting it actually are making earnest, sincere efforts to move us forward. Do you think Musk is a good person? Or does the desire to recruit people who also want to create a third party trump any character assessments? I'm someone who tends to judge people by their actions more than anything else. And Elon Musk has done more for sustainability on this planet than virtually any other human, and that's something that I think is incredibly estimable and admirable. I've been in public life now for a number of years, and I'm sure I've said or done things that people can brandish and say, 'Oh, I disagree with this person.' I live my life trying to use actions as the guiding principle. I try to hold other people to a standard where actions and impacts are much more important than statements or misstatements. If Musk were serious about building a third party, what do you think the path would look like with the help of his money and social media platform? It would be very straightforward. I've spent several years looking at it. You can start with candidates like Mike Duggan, who are running as independents in very significant races, in this case, for the governorship of Michigan. You could energize tens of thousands of local candidates and wind up with thousands of elected officials very, very quickly. You could create a fulcrum in the U.S. Senate. I call it the Legislator Liberation Fund, where you could offer to buy out senators or members of Congress from their contract with their current party by funding their next election, and they could vote their conscience. There are a lot of legislators who are on the verge of retirement who might take that and say, 'Okay, I don't have to grovel before the donors for the last number of years. I can actually try and fix American politics.' There are multiple members of Congress I've spoken to whose ears are very, very open to that kind of offer. In the scheme of things, none of the things I'm talking about are that expensive for someone with a certain level of resources. I'll give you the opportunity to make a direct sales pitch to Musk: What would you say to him in this moment to get him on board and help fund the Forward Party or the creation of a new party? Elon, the political class will never get serious about putting America on a path to sustainability, and you've seen it up close. You know that if it's going to happen, it's going to be from some new force in American politics. Help us build it.
