Mass deportations from Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill could quietly cost U.S. over $1.4 trillion
Mass deportations enabled by the Trump administration 's Big, Beautiful Bill spending and tax package could cost the U.S. over $1 trillion in the coming years, as the administration is already reportedly struggling to fund its rapidly expanding immigration crackdown.
The package, which the House of Representatives passed last month, directs $168 billion towards immigration and border law enforcement agencies.
That spending, combined with the economic impact of removing scores of immigrants and more granular changes, like a potential decline in revenues thanks to the possible deterrent effect of new fees on migrants, could cost the U.S. over $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis from the libertarian Cato Institute.
David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Institute, argued on X on Friday that the bill is an 'absolute explosion of cash unparalleled in American history,' spending that could be better used on other public safety investments.
'The fiscal cost of mass deportation will equal the cost of all federal law enforcement spending over the next decade,' Bier wrote. 'Imagine how many rapes, murders, thefts, etc. could be solved with this money. We could have a much, much safer society spending this money on ANYTHING ELSE.'
Even without the Big, Beautiful Bill, the administration is already rapidly burning through immigration funding.
As of March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was reportedly $2 billion short of maintaining its current pace of operations through the end of the fiscal year,
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of much of the administration's immigration agenda, has brushed off such concerns, arguing last week on X that, 'Anyone serious about limited government and improving America's financial health would understand that ending mass migration is the prerequisite for every other problem we wish to solve.'
Immigration analysts aren't the only ones concerned about the fiscal impact of the reconciliation package.
As part of the acrimonious split between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire lambasted the Big, Beautiful Bill as an ' outrageous, pork-filled, disgusting abomination ' that added too much spending to the federal balance sheet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
43 minutes ago
- The Sun
Diddy would be released in DAYS after Trump pardon but a ‘free ride' out of jail will not help his future, lawyer warns
SEAN 'Diddy' Combs would be a free man within days if Donald Trump decides to pardon him but it would not bode well for his future, a lawyer has warned. Trump surprised reporters by commenting on Diddy's court case during a news conference with Elon Musk last week and revealed he would consider whether the rapper's been "mistreated." 5 5 Combs has been pictured with the President at several events over the years but they had not been in contact leading up to his arrest for alleged sex trafficking and racketeering. Asked if he would consider pardoning him, Trump said, "Nobody's asked. But I know people are thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." He said he felt the former music mogul used to like him "a lot" but wasn't his biggest fan after he went into politics. Despite this, Trump said, "I would certainly look at the facts. If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact on me." The U.S. Sun spoke to Los Angeles-based trial attorney Tre Lovell for his opinion on a possible pardon and how that would play out. He said, "The pardoning power is one of the ultimate powers of the President. It's virtually unchecked, and he can do it. 'He doesn't even have to wait for the conviction. He can do it at any time after somebody's charged, even after the crime occurs. "So the second that President Trump determines that he's gonna pardon him [Diddy]. It happens immediately. QUICK RELEASE "They basically sign the pardon, it would be sent to Diddy, and assuming he accepted, which obviously he would, then that's that." Lovell said if he had already been convicted there would be an administrative process through the Federal Bureau of Prisons to arrange his release and transportation but it wouldn't be long before he was out. Diddy 'gave hotel guard $100k in paper bag to bury Cassie beating video' "There may be a few hours, maybe one or two days sometimes that they can take time just because of the bureaucracy," he said. Combs, 55, is currently on trial in New York after pleading not guilty to five counts of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He is facing up to life in prison if convicted. The jury has heard from several witnesses in the case so far, including Combs' ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, after a damning video emerged of him beating her during their relationship. Diddy locked eyes with us as he entered the courtroom - inside the trial of the decade By Israel S-Rodriguez, Senior News Reporter at The U.S. Sun: The federal sex trafficking trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs began with jury selection on May 5. Combs is standing trial at the Southern District of New York Courthouse in Lower Manhattan - an intimidating federal courthouse where the cases of Ghislaine Maxwell, Donald Trump, and Bernard Madoff, among others, were tried. Once a powerful founder of a music and business empire, Combs has been reduced to a defendant, inmate 37452-054, stripped of his mogul status, and now standing trial on five federal charges with the full wrath of the United States government against him. When I attended Day 3 of jury selection at the federal courthouse on May 7, the buzz around the start of the trial was palpable. Hours before the courthouse opened its doors, more than a dozen reporters and members of the public stood in line in hopes of securing a seat in the gallery for the high-profile trial. As you walk through the glass door entrance of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, you are met by bulletproof vest-clad court officers. All visitors must separate their electronic devices from their personal belongings, which are passed through a metal detector. Visitors walk through a metal detector before a court officer hands them a poker chip. The courthouse uses a poker chip system to sort the number of electronic devices visitors are in possession of. Electronic devices, such as Bluetooth-powered headphones, voice recorders, laptops, cellphones, and smart watches, are confiscated before you're allowed to enter the courthouse's main hallway. As about a half-dozen reporters and I waited in the gallery for jury selection, we witnessed how Combs entered the courtroom shackle-free. Combs entered with his hands pressed together, greeted his defense team before he examined the gallery, and locked eyes with reporters and potential jurors. The 55-year-old disgraced Bad Boy Records executive was attentive and engaged with his counsel as they grilled dozens of potential jurors. As jury selection wrapped up for the day, Combs embraced each of his female defense attorneys before he mouthed "thank you" to a handful of supporters in the gallery. I attended trial again as opening statements got underway on May 12 and the world media waited anxiously outside the federal courthouse before the sun rose in Lower Manhattan. A line stretched down the block from the federal courthouse as some members of the media and from the public camped out overnight to try to obtain a coveted seat inside the gallery. At least three overflow rooms were made available for reporters and the public, who are eager to witness the prosecutions case against the music mogul. At least half a dozen members of Combs' family arrived at the courthouse as spectators filed in single order to enter the federal building to turn over all their electronic devices. Combs' trial is being held on the 26th floor in Judge Arun Subramanian's courtroom and is expected to last for eight weeks. We'll bring it all to you on The U.S. Sun. He said it wouldn't make sense for Trump to pardon him halfway into the prosecution's case when the jury hasn't yet heard all of the facts, adding that it would be "premature" to act now. "I was very surprised that Trump is considering pardoning Diddy, especially in light of the fact the trial is ongoing now,' he said. "We are hearing witness after witness after witness testify to some horrible things. 'It would be a slap in the face to the witnesses, to the victims, to a lot of people to just pardon him, you know. "It would seem that he would want to wait until the trial is over, and if there's not a conviction then there's no need for him to get involved.' He went on to say, "There's one thing that Americans stand for … it's accountability, and if he were pardoned in light of what's been happening, these allegations and this testimony, there would be a sense of loss and lack of accountability. "And so I don't know how that would sit with most Americans with respect to President Trump." But Lovell said he doesn't think anybody would be surprised if Trump pardoned Diddy. "He's pardoned a lot of people that people take umbrage [with]. And he's not worried about a re-election, so I don't really think it would affect him. "He may have some more detractors, but I don't think he really cares, and his conduct thus far shows he's going to do what he wants to do." Lovell feels if Diddy is acquitted it would be a sense of victory and it would be easier to acclimate to society because he will have been vindicated in court. However, if he's convicted and pardoned by Trump it would have more of a negative impact on him. "It'll be a little tougher because people will think he got a free ride and beat the system," he said. But regardless, Lovell feels "Diddy's reputation has been irreparably harmed" and he will never be the billionaire music mogul he was once admired by millions. It comes after... Cassie Ventura gave birth after she gave four days of grueling testimony about her relationship with Sean Combs during his federal sex trafficking trial Ventura testified Combs forced her to participate in "freak-offs" where he watched her have sex with male escorts Celebrities like Prince, Mike Myers, and Bill Gates have been mentioned throughout the trial Kid Cudi testified about how his Porsche was blown up after Combs flew into a jealous rage when he dated Cassie Trump has pardoned several high-profile inmates in recent months, including reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley three years after they were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. Combs' federal trial has been ongoing for more than three weeks and there are more witnesses set to testify. More and more damning accusations have emerged about the alleged violence he inflicted behind closed doors. The trial opened up with powerful testimony from Ventura, Combs' ex-girlfriend of over a decade. The singer, 38, alleged Combs forced her to participate in weekly drug-fueled sex marathons, which he called "freak-offs," with male escorts. Ventura, who said she did not want to engage in the sex acts, told the court her music career took a backseat due to the toll the orgies took on her day, testifying how she needed days at a time to recover. Prosecutors also released photos of the injuries Ventura allegedly suffered from Combs' years-long abuse, including a gash on her forehead that had become a permanent scar. Combs has remained mostly stone-faced in court as his lawyers insist he is innocent. The prosecution's case is slated to rest the week of June 9. If you or someone you know is affected by any of the issues raised in this story, call RAINN (Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network) at 800-656-HOPE (4673). Diddy's charges explained by a lawyer Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani explained the set of charges Diddy is facing to The U.S. Sun: "Diddy is facing three charges, or three sets of charges. "The first is racketeering, which you typically see with organized crime enterprises - so the mob, cartels, street gangs -but we're seeing it a lot more in sex trafficking cases. "And you don't need an organization like the mob, as long as it's an enterprise, which is something that consists of two or more people, and they engage in two or more RICO predicate acts, that's enough for racketeering. "Racketeering is a powerful charge because it allows the government to bring in all sorts of evidence of criminal activity, as well as all sorts of people, into that racketeering conspiracy. "And anyone who's a co-conspirator, they're on the hook for any criminal acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. "The most serious charge, though, is sex trafficking. "What separates sex trafficking from normal sex? Adults, of course, can consent to any type of sex, no matter how freaky it is. But sex trafficking has one of three elements: force, fraud, or coercion. "And the government is saying that Diddy used force to force these men and women to participate in these freak-offs, and he coerced them by drugging them. "The least serious charge is the prostitution, sometimes called the Man Act, and that's engaging in prostitution using some sort of interstate commerce across state lines. That obviously is unlawful. "Typically, you don't see federal cases for prostitution only, which is why it's the least serious of the crimes." 5 5
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Orwell's 1984 now comes with ‘trigger warning'
George Orwell's estate has been accused of attempting to censor 1984 by adding a 'trigger warning' preface to the 75th anniversary edition of the dystopian novel. The new introductory essay describes the novel's protagonist Winston Smith as 'problematic' and warns modern readers may find his views on women 'despicable'. Critics claim the preface, written by Dolen Perkins-Valdez, an American novelist, and included in the 75th anniversary edition published in the US last year, risks undermining the work's warning against state control of thought. In 1984, citizens of the superstate Oceania are punished for subversive thoughts by the Thought Police. Now, in a real-world twist, the estate that oversees Orwell's literary legacy stands accused of ideological policing. 'We're getting somebody to actually convict George Orwell himself of thought crime in the introduction to his book about thought crime,' said Walter Kirn, a novelist and critic, on the podcast America This Week, hosted by journalist Matt Taibbi. 'We're not yet in a world where books and classic books are being excised or eliminated,' Kirn added, but warned the Orwell estate-approved edition of 1984 had been 'published with an apology for itself'. Ms Perkins-Valdez's preface is included in the anniversary edition of the 1949 classic, published by Berkley Books, an imprint of Penguin Random House. In it, the award-winning novelist said she aimed to approach 1984 as a new reader, and admitted that, given the protagonist's views, she might once have abandoned the book entirely. 'I'm enjoying the novel on its own terms, not as a classic, but as a good story, that is, until Winston reveals himself to be a problematic character,' she wrote. 'For example, we learn of him: 'He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones'.' The novel follows Winston Smith, a minor bureaucrat who secretly rebels against the regime with Julia, a fellow party member. Their doomed affair is cut short when they are arrested, tortured and brainwashed into betraying one another. Although Ms Perkins-Valdez eventually concludes Orwell was portraying misogyny as a feature of totalitarianism, her comments have provoked a backlash. Her preface also takes issue with the novel's handling of race. As a black woman, she says she finds little to connect with characters in Oceania. 'The most 1984-ish thing I've read' Mr Kirn questioned the need for Ms Perkins-Valdez's introduction, pointing out the 75th anniversary edition of 1984 already included a foreword by Thomas Pynchon, one of the greatest living American novelists. 'If you have a foreword by Thomas Pynchon to a book, you don't need another foreword, right? You got maybe the greatest living novelist of our time, who's also a recluse, to come out and write something. That's all you need. 'But no, these people felt they needed an introduction before the old white man's introduction. So this version of 1984 has a trigger warning!' He called it 'the most 1984-ish thing I've ever f---ing read'. The controversy follows real-life cases of so-called 'thought crime' in Britain. In February, The Telegraph revealed that Julian Foulkes, a retired special constable, had been wrongly arrested and cautioned by Kent Police over a social media post that warned of rising anti-Semitism. Officers who raided his home commented on his 'very Brexity' bookshelves and leafed through titles including The War on the West by Douglas Murray and The Demise of the Free State by David Green. His caution has since been deleted, and he has received compensation. Last month, The Telegraph reported that Scotland Yard had charged a Jewish counter-protester for holding a placard mocking Hezbollah's leader, claiming the sign could 'distress' terrorist sympathisers. The charge was dropped after eight months. Orwell himself has not escaped modern reassessment. In 2023, his wife's biographer Anna Funder described him as 'sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, sometimes violent' and claimed 1984's darkness reflected the author's own. 'He desperately wants to be decent,' she told an audience at the Cheltenham Literature Festival in 2023. 'But writing a book like 1984, which is violent, misogynist, sadistic, grim, paranoid: that comes out of a writer's flaws.' Nor is this the first time 1984 has been flagged for 'problematic' content. In 2022, the University of Northampton warned students it contained 'explicit material' that may be 'offensive and upsetting'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Professor sues University of California for suspension over comments about Israel's war in Gaza
A professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, says the university violated her freedom of speech rights by suspending her for her online comments about Israel's war in Gaza in a new lawsuit. The suit was filed by Rupa Marya, an internal medicine physician and professor at UCSF, identified as an expert in decolonial theory. Marya was placed on leave in September 2024 and had her clinical privileges briefly suspended by the UCSF executive medical board following comments she made on X that questioned the impacts of Zionism as 'a supremacist, racist ideology' on healthcare. Without naming Marya directly, the university subsequently published a statement across its social media accounts that said such comments were a 'tired and racist conspiracy theory' that 'Zionist doctors were a threat to Arab, Palestinian, South Asian, Muslin and Black patients, as well as the US healthcare system' and should be condemned. Mark Kleiman, an attorney for Marya, said in the court filing that his client was fired last month 'despite requesting a hearing, which she was entitled to', according to NBC News. 'Firing Dr Marya doesn't only violate her right to free speech, it threatens all of us,' he said in a statement to the network. 'We all need to urgently speak up against these kinds of attacks on our basic rights to advocate for justice, and we expect the court will agree with us that Dr Marya's rights have been violated and must be remedied.' According to court documents, Marya's posts 'never impeded the performance of her duties as a physician or faculty member, or the regular operation of the university'. 'As a medical doctor, American citizen and as a person of south Asian descent raised in the Sikh religious tradition, Dr Marya has long been concerned about American foreign policy, including in the Middle East and the issues surrounding the conflict between Israel and Palestine,' the complaint reads. 'Her posts take aim at state policy and supremacist political ideologies, not at any religious or ethnic group.' According to the lawsuit, Marya received 'rape and death threats' as well as 'repeated harassment and threats' because of her posts. She says her posts also expressed 'solidarity with the hospitals and healthcare workers that Israel was attacking in Gaza' and that she 'felt an obligation to speak out and did so using her X account'. In a September 2024 post, Marya wrote on social media that UCSF students were concerned that a first-year student from Israel may have served in the IDF; she asked 'if he participated in the genocide of Palestinians' and asked her colleagues what to do about it. The post drew the attention of state senator Scott Wiener, who posted on X that 'the same UCSF professor who promoted the 'doctors' plot' – an age old antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish doctors are harming patients – is now targeting a 1st year med student for harassment b/c he's Israeli. This professor is creating a toxic, hostile environment at UCSF.' UCSF's chancellor, Sam Hawgood, said he took 'immediate action to address this situation,' adding that 'targeting any member of our UCSF community – especially in a way that fosters hostility or discrimination – will not be tolerated', according to a letter obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle. In a March interview with the Guardian, Marya asked: 'How do we integrate [Israeli] reservists into the medical community – with [Palestinian] students who have lost 50 or 60 family members? What is the moral obligation of medicine?' The lawsuit comes as there is ongoing and widespread disagreement across the US about academic freedom on college campuses. Last week, the Trump administration stepped up its efforts to force US universities to crack down on what it deems antisemitic activity. The Department of Education warned New York's Columbia University it could lose accreditation, and thus access to federal grants, over an alleged violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services said last month that it had found that Columbia had acted with 'deliberate indifference' toward the harassment of Jewish students during campus protests. Israel's war in Gaza is estimated to have killed more than 54,000 Palestinians and levelled much of the territory. Last week, the Guardian reported that on Sunday at least 31 Palestinians were killed after Israeli forces opened fire near a food distribution center in Rafah, Gaza. A separate incident at the same site on Monday killed three. International criticism intensified last week over a new aid distribution system in Gaza, run by the Israeli- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), and not UN or international aid organisations. The UN's human rights chief, Volker Türk, said that Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: 'Die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available.' The attacks on civilians, he added, constituted a war crime. The Guardian has contacted UCSF and Marya's legal team for comment.
