Elizabeth Warren Posted This Troubling Video Describing How Senate Republicans Reacted After They Voted On The "One Big Beautiful Bill"
The domestic policy megabill, which focuses on tax cuts, border control and immigration, and slashing social services to cut spending, could become the defining legislation of Trump's second term. It passed in both the Senate and the House, then was signed into law by Trump on July 4. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a progressive Democrat from Massachusetts, made a video in the car as she left the Capitol after voting on the bill last Tuesday.
Related:
"I'm leaving the Senate now," she says. "At the end of the vote, when the Republicans won, they cheered."
"They cheered over taking away healthcare from around 17 million people."
"They cheered over giving huge tax breaks to a handful of billionaires."
"They cheered over running up the national debt by another three and a half trillion dollars."
"You know, this bill, it's bad. It's bad economically. It's bad morally," Warren says. "This bill is just wrong."
senwarren / Instagram / Via reddit.com
Related:
Then, though, she tries to give fellow progressives a glimmer of hope. "But, we stay in the fight," she repeats three times. "And we proved why we stay in the fight, because actually, there are pieces of this bill that we got better."
"We got the tax on solar and wind knocked out, and that's gonna help with clean energy. We got a few different pieces and made them better," she says. "So that's reason number one. It's always the reminder. All of those calls matter."
senwarren / Instagram / Via reddit.com
"Reason number two is it's still not over. The bill has now gotta go back over to the House. And there are a lot of Republicans who are feeling really squeamish about this bill at this point," Warren reminds people. "So that means we gotta stay in the fight."
senwarren / Instagram / Via reddit.com
"And reason number three is, yeah, they may do this now, but come November 2026, they're gonna have to face the voters. They're gonna have to face the people, the families of the people whose healthcare they took away. And they're gonna have to explain exactly what they just did just now on the floor of the United States Senate and whatever they do next."
Related:
"So," she sighs, "this is hard. But, damn. We stay in the fight. We stay in it not because it's an easy fight, not because we're guaranteed to win every time. We stay in it because it's the right fight."
Warren's video originally went up on her Instagram to widespread praise. She captioned it, "After 26 hours of fighting on the Senate floor, Republicans voted to rip health care from millions of people and let little babies go hungry. And they cheered. I'm angry. You should be too. But this fight isn't over." Most of the comments looked like this:
The video was reposted onto r/Fauxmoi on Reddit by user cmaia1503, who summarized the video with a few of the Senator's quotes. The post has over 11,000 upvotes and more than 400 comments, which looked a little different than the ones on Warren's Instagram post.
The "will we even have an election in 2026" sentiment was echoed a lot.
Someone mentioned that even if a Democrat wins the 2028 presidential election, they're being set up to fail by the bill.
Related:
This person is REALLY not optimistic about 2026, saying the Democrats have "given us so little energy thus far."
"I've seen nothing to suggest there will be a free and fair election in 2026," this person wrote.
One commenter wrote that "losing healthcare might be among the least of our worries," citing increased funding for ICE, among other things.
Someone wrote that the cheering Senate Republicans are "soulless" and "will fuck over their own supporters to 'win.'"
And finally, this person asked how "you reason with idiots" — aka people voting against their own interests.
What do you think about Senator Warren's message? Let me know in the comments.
Also in In the News:
Also in In the News:
Also in In the News:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Comrade Chris' – Republicans aim to anchor Mamdani to Democrats across the country
GILSUM, N.H. – Republicans aren't wasting an opportunity to make democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani a cudgel to bash Democrats across the country. Mamdani's stunning mayoral primary victory in the nation's most populous city rocked the political world, adding fuel to an already volatile election season. Republicans have been relentless in trying to anchor Mamdani to Democrats across the country who are running in competitive races in elections this year and in next year's midterms. That's the case in New Hampshire, in the high-profile 2026 race to succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Republican candidate and former Sen. Scott Brown went up this week with a digital ad that edits a picture of Rep. Chris Pappas, the Democratic candidate in the race, alongside photos of Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive rock star who backed Mamdani. Trump Argues Nyc Faces Dire Consequences If 'Communist' Mamdani Becomes Mayor Read On The Fox News App The caption on the ad reads "Comrade Chris." Pappas, speaking with Fox News Friday on the campaign trail as he toured W.S. Badger, a natural and organic skincare and sunscreen company in this southwestern New Hampshire town, said, "Republicans have spent tens of millions of dollars running attack ads against me through the years trying to paint me as someone that I'm not." "People know me. They know the work that I've been doing. They know that I'm one of the most bipartisan members of the House of Representatives because I believe in solving problems and getting things done," Pappas said. "I'm a New Hampshire Democrat. I'm proud of my track record in Congress." The Plot To Stop Mamdani: Democrats Scramble To Prevent Far-left Takeover In Nyc Pappas was joined on the campaign trail by longtime Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who spent plenty of time in New Hampshire ahead of her third-place finish in the state's 2020 Democratic presidential primary. "It's about New Hampshire. They're going to do this in all these races across the country. They try to attach people. People have never even met some of these people. And they keep doing it," Klobuchar told Fox News when asked about the Republican ad anchoring Mamdani to Pappas. "To me this is about what's going on for the people of this state." The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) was one of the first out of the gate to capitalize on Mamdani's leftward lurch, firing off an email release minutes after his victory that claimed, "the new face of the Democrat Party just dropped, and it's straight out of a socialist nightmare." Aiming to tie House Democrats to Mamdani, NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella argued that "every vulnerable House Democrat will own him, and every Democrat running in a primary will fear him." The National Republican Senatorial Campaign (NRSC) also quickly got into the game, tying Pappas and Abdul El-Sayed – one of the contenders for the Democratic Senate nomination in battleground Michigan – to Mamdani. No surprise – the Republican attacks have even come from President Donald Trump, who, since Mamdani's victory two weeks ago, has repeatedly claimed that the 33-year-old Ugandan-born state assemblyman from the New York City borough of Queens is a "communist." Mamdani, who convincingly topped former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and nine other candidates to capture the Democratic mayoral nomination and take a big step toward becoming the city's first Muslim mayor, is giving Republicans plenty of ammunition. He's proposed eliminating fares to ride New York City's vast bus system, making CUNY (City University of New York) "tuition-free," freezing rents on municipal housing, offering "free childcare" for children up to age 5, and setting up government-run grocery stores. Resurfaced Mamdani Photo Sparks Social Media Firestorm Also fueling the Republican attacks are recent news items that have gone viral. They include a 2020 photo Mamdani posted online that shows him flipping off a statue of Christopher Columbus, stories about comments Mamdani made last December, when he said as mayor he would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his recent comments in a cable news interview that "I have many critiques of capitalism." "The Democratic Party's trying to convince people that the tail is not wagging the dog, and they don't answer to the more extreme elements of their party," veteran Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News. "Now, that entire effort is undercut by a socialist winning handily in a bellwether election to determine who's going to run America's largest city." "It's a messaging nightmare that's going to unfold in real time from now until the midterms," said Reed, who is a top political advisor to Brown. Mamdani Lands Endorsement Of Top Cuomo Backer Veteran political scientist Wayne Lesperance told Fox News that "the primary challenge for Democrats regarding Mamdani's candidacy is not his policy approach. The challenge is his party identification as a democratic socialist." "If there's any doubt about the negative implications of adding the word socialist to Mamdani's party affiliation, one need only peruse the national coverage whose focus has been on his party and the absence of party leadership to rush to his defense or offer endorsements," Lesperance, the president of New England College, said. But Democrats question the effectiveness of the GOP push. They argue that there's a world of difference between heavily blue New York City, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a roughly six-to-one margin, and some key battleground states and swing districts across the country. Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee told reporters the day after Mamdani's victory that "I love New York, but it's a very liberal place and I don't know that you can necessarily apply that to the rest of the country." Pappas campaign communications adviser Collin Gately pointed to the ad from the Brown campaign and said, "Granite Staters trust Chris and will see through these attacks." And veteran Democratic strategist Joe Caiazzo cautioned, "I wouldn't read too much into this." Caiazzo, a veteran of Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, argued that "Republicans are making too much out of this."Original article source: 'Comrade Chris' – Republicans aim to anchor Mamdani to Democrats across the country
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Bombshell: Denaturalized Citizen Forced To Exit, Can't Escape Exit Tax
The Trump administration is ramping up efforts to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans. ... More Can those stripped of their U.S. citizenship be subject to the U.S. tax expatriation rules even though they are not voluntarily giving up U.S. citizenship? It seems so. In the heart of America's immigration debate, a lesser-known but seismic issue is emerging. The intersection of denaturalization and the expatriation tax regime is an explosive topic that has not yet been explored. If the expatriation regime applies to a denaturalized citizen, it imposes an exit tax through a deemed sale of worldwide assets as well as a transfer tax (current 40% rate) on gifts or inheritances received by U.S. individuals from the former citizen. As the Trump administration ramps up efforts to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans, especially those accused of fraud or misrepresentation in their naturalization applications, a critical question comes to the fore. Can those stripped of their U.S. citizenship be subject to the U.S. tax expatriation rules even though they are not voluntarily giving up U.S. citizenship? If so, can they argue their U.S. citizenship was void from the outset, meaning they were never a citizen to begin with, thereby escaping the potentially crippling tax consequences? Naturalized Americans Stripped Of U.S. Citizenship This issue is steeped in legal complexity, and it has been heightened by recent policy shifts. It could have profound implications for vulnerable naturalized citizens who are high-net-worth individuals. It has recently been reported that the U.S. Department of Justice under directives from President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, is aggressively pursuing denaturalization cases as part of a broader immigration enforcement agenda. The DOJ's June 11, 2025 memorandum instructs its Civil Division to 'prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings' against naturalized citizens who obtained citizenship through fraud, misrepresentation, or who pose national security threats, such as those with ties to terrorism or serious criminal offenses. This policy shift has sent shockwaves through immigrant communities comprised of over 25 million naturalized citizens. High-profile cases, such as that of Elliott Duke, a U.K.-born military veteran denaturalized in June 2025 for crimes committed before naturalization, highlight the real-world stakes. Duke, now stateless after renouncing British citizenship, faces not only the loss of U.S. rights but also potential tax liabilities under the U.S. expatriation tax regime. Rubbing Salt In The Wound: Expatriation Tax Regime The current expatriation regime is embodied in IRC Section 877A, enacted in 2008 to deter wealthy Americans from renouncing citizenship to avoid taxes. The law imposes an 'exit tax' on 'covered expatriates' which includes U.S. citizens or long term residents who relinquish citizenship or green cards, respectively, and meet any one three criteria: (1) having an average annual net income tax liability above a threshold ($206,000 for 2025, adjusted for inflation), (2) having a net worth of $2 million or more, or (3) failing to certify tax compliance for the five years preceding expatriation. The tax operates as a mark-to-market regime, treating the individual as if he has sold all worldwide assets at fair market value the day before expatriation. Gain exceeding a certain exclusion amount is subject to income tax. Another provision of the expatriation tax regime is a separate transfer tax under Code Section 2801 imposing a 40% tax on U.S. citizens or residents who receive gifts or bequests from a covered expatriate. This provision complements the Section 877A exit tax by targeting wealth transfers occurring any time in the future after expatriation. Involuntarily Denaturalization And the Expatriation Tax Regime Can the expatriation tax regime apply to an individual who was denaturalized involuntarily through a court order? Apparently, this seems so. Crucially, the tax law defines the expatriation date for various classes of cases, such as those who renounce U.S. citizenship, or give up long term residency. A special provision defines the expatriation date for denaturalized citizens as 'the date a court cancels a certificate of naturalization.' This explicitly includes involuntary loss of citizenship, meaning denaturalized individuals are subject to the exit tax if they meet the covered expatriate criteria. For high-net-worth individuals, the expatriation tax regime can result in hefty exit tax liability even though citizenship is stripped against their will. The Ab Initio Argument: A Legal Long Shot For Those Whose Citizenship Is Revoked A tantalizing defense for denaturalized citizens is to argue that their citizenship was void ab initio—from the beginning—due to fraud or misrepresentation in the naturalization process. If they were never legally a U.S. citizen, the argument goes, they cannot be an 'expatriate' under Section 877A(g)(2)(A), which applies to 'any United States citizen who relinquishes his citizenship.' Could this argument exempt them from the exit tax, sparing them significant financial consequences? From an immigration perspective, the ab initio argument has merit. The United States Supreme Court in Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 228 (1912) held that denaturalization renders citizenship void, as if it never existed, because it was procured unlawfully. The tax law, however, operates differently from the immigration laws. We have seen this, for example, in the case of expired green cards. Simply because the individual no longer has the right to permanently reside in the United States upon expiration of the card, does not mean he is no longer liable for U.S. income taxes. The green card must be relinquished according to specific procedures to escape U.S. tax liability. Similarly, it appears, a naturalized citizen who has enjoyed citizenship benefits would be considered a citizen for tax purposes up until the court-ordered revocation date as specified in the expatriation tax regime rules. Allowing the ab initio argument to exempt denaturalized citizens from the exit tax could create a loophole, enabling those who fraudulently obtained citizenship to evade taxes. Given the right set of facts, however, a looming legal battle and challenge to application of the expatriation tax regime in such a case may be ahead. Green Card Holders Must Be Extremely Cautious The Trump administration's broader immigration crackdown, including policies targeting green card holders for alleged support of terrorism or criminal activity, carries the same tax risks. When the green card of a long term resident is revoked (or voluntarily relinquished), this is an 'expatriation' for tax purposes. The individual is treated the same as a U.S. citizen who gives up citizenship. The harsh U.S. tax consequences can apply if the individual meets any one of the tests for being a 'covered expatriate.' Navigating Risks: Practical Advice For naturalized citizens and long term residents, particularly those with significant wealth, the risks of denaturalization or green card revocation and the expatriation tax regime demand proactive measures. Ensuring complete accuracy in immigration applications is the first step. If a denaturalization or revocation case arises, get proper U.S. international tax help to examine the expatriation tax issues. Planning is paramount to minimize the risks and tax hit. This entire area is highly fluid and unpredictable. As such, it is critical for those with a stake to closely monitor ongoing events. Legal, political, and regulatory shifts can occur rapidly, with life-changing implications. Staying informed is essential. Stay on top of tax matters around the globe. Reach me at vljeker@ Visit my US tax blog
News24
28 minutes ago
- News24
How Trump's trade war is upending the global economy
US President Donald Trump's tariff decisions since he took office on 20 January have shocked financial markets and sent a wave of uncertainty through the global economy. Here is a timeline of the major developments: 1 February - Trump imposes 25% tariffs on Mexican and most Canadian imports and 10% on goods from China, demanding they curb the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the United States. 3 February - Trump suspends his threat of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, agreeing to a 30-day pause in return for concessions on border and crime enforcement. The US has not reached such a deal with China. 7 February - Trump delays tariffs on de minimis, or low-cost, packages from China until the Commerce Department can confirm that procedures and systems are in place to process them and collect tariff revenue. 10 February - Trump raises tariffs on steel and aluminium to a flat 25% 'without exceptions or exemptions'. 3 March - Trump says 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada will take effect from March 4 and doubles fentanyl-related tariffs on all Chinese imports to 20%. 5 March - He agrees to delay tariffs for one month on some vehicles built in Canada and Mexico after a call with the CEOs of General Motors and Ford and the chair of Stellantis. 6 March - Trump exempts goods from Canada and Mexico under a North American trade pact for a month from the 25% tariffs. 26 March - Trump unveils a 25% tariff on imported cars and light trucks. 2 April - He announces global tariffs with a baseline of 10% across all imports and significantly higher duties on some of the United States' biggest trading partners. 9 April - Trump pauses for 90 days most of his country-specific tariffs that kicked in less than 24 hours earlier, following an upheaval in financial markets that erased trillions of dollars from bourses around the world. The 10% blanket duty on almost all US imports stays in place. Trump says he will raise the tariff on Chinese imports to 125% from the 104% level that took effect a day earlier. This pushes the extra duties on Chinese goods to 145%, including the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed earlier. 13 April - The US administration grants exclusions from steep tariffs on smartphones, computers and some other electronics imported largely from China. 22 April - The Trump administration launches national security probes under Section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962 into imports of both pharmaceuticals and semiconductors as part of a bid to impose tariffs on both sectors. 4 May - Trump imposes a 100% tariff on all movies produced outside the US. 9 May - Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announce a limited bilateral trade agreement that leaves in place 10% tariffs on British exports, modestly expands agricultural access for both countries and lowers prohibitive US duties on British car exports. 12 May - The US and China agree to temporarily slash reciprocal tariffs. Under the 90-day truce, the US will cut the extra tariffs it imposed on Chinese imports to 30% from 145%, while China's duties on US imports will be slashed to 10% from 125%. 13 May - The US cuts the low-value 'de minimis' tariff on China shipments, reducing duties for items valued at up to $800 to 54% from 120%. 23 May - Trump says he is recommending a straight 50% tariff on goods from the European Union starting on June 1. He also warns Apple would face a 25% tariff if the phones it sold in the US were manufactured outside of the country. 25 May - Trump backpedals on his threat to slap 50% tariffs on EU imports, agreeing to extend the deadline for talks until 9 July. 28 May - A US trade court blocks Trump's tariffs from going into effect in a sweeping ruling that the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from US trade partners. The Trump administration says it will appeal the ruling. 29 May - A federal appeals court temporarily reinstates the most sweeping of Trump's tariffs, pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and orders the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9. 3 June - Trump signs an executive proclamation activating a hike in the tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%. 12 June - Trump warns at the White House event that he may soon hike auto tariffs, arguing that it could prod automakers to speed US investments. 3 July- Trump says the US will place a 20% tariff on many Vietnamese exports, with trans-shipments from third countries through Vietnam facing a 40% levy. 6 July - He says on Truth Social that countries aligning themselves with the 'anti-American policies' of BRICS will be charged an additional 10% tariff. 7 July - Trump says on Truth Social that the additional higher duties announced in earlier months will kick in with a delay on 1 August, as the US closes in on the completion of several trade deals. In letters sent to 14 countries, including Japan, South Korea and Serbia, he says he will introduce tariffs between 25% and 40% from 1 August. 8 July - Trump says he will impose a 50% tariff on imported copper and soon introduce levies on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
