
White House makes misleading claims about Democratic opposition to tax bill
In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the 'big, beautiful bill', the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it.
Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the 'big beautiful bill'.
Here's a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose:
'They're opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.'
The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center.
While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent.
It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.
'They're opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.'
This is true only in their opposition to Trump's tax and spending bill.
Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously.
'They're opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens'
Outside of the 'big beautiful bill', Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000.
In 2024, House Democrats introduced the 'You Earned It, You Keep It Act', which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee.
'They're opposing a boost to the child tax credit.'
Again, they are opposing Trump's 'big beautiful bill', not objecting to the child tax credit.
In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia's Raphael Warnock and Colorado's Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently.
While the 'big beautiful bill' would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028.
'They're opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.'
In the 'big beautiful bill', House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029.
Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it.
In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023.
'They're opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.'
This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump's bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less.
While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.
'They're opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.'
Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump's chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump's first term.
A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the 'big beautiful bill' allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation.
'They're opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.'
This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid.
'They're opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.'
In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education.
Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
What has Musk accused Trump of in relation to the Epstein files?
The tech billionaire and owner of Tesla and Starlink, Elon Musk, has accused United States President Donald Trump of being one of the names in the still-sealed Epstein files, and claims that this is the real reason key documents are still being withheld from the public. In January 2024, many of the so-called 'Epstein files' compiled by US federal investigators were released to the public. However, some remained sealed. Trump's presidency began with a strong boost from Musk, who donated large sums to Trump's presidential campaign and was appointed to lead a newly formed federal agency aimed at streamlining government operations, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that relationship fractured after Musk resigned from the role in May 2025, following mounting public backlash over fiscal policies and a sharp decline in Tesla's stock. Since then, Musk has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of Trump, calling his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' a 'disgusting abomination' for increasing the national debt and eliminating electric vehicle subsidies, and, now, accusing him of links to Epstein. Here's what we know about the Epstein files and Musk's accusations. The 'Epstein files' are a collection of documents compiled by US federal authorities during investigations into the activities of Jeffrey Epstein, the now-deceased financier and convicted sex offender. These files include flight logs, contact lists, court records and other materials documenting his activities and associations with high-profile individuals. The first major release of the documents took place in January 2024, when a federal judge ordered the unsealing of records from a 2015 defamation lawsuit against Epstein's associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. In February 2025, the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) followed up with an official declassification of additional documents, many of which had already leaked, featuring redacted flight logs and contact books. However, many documents remain sealed or heavily redacted, prompting public calls for full disclosure. US Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that the FBI is reviewing tens of thousands of documents, with further releases pending necessary redactions to protect victims and ongoing investigations. On Thursday, Musk publicly accused President Donald Trump of being named in the unreleased Epstein files. In a post on his social media platform X, Musk wrote: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' He did not provide any evidence to support this has not directly addressed Musk's claim regarding the Epstein files. However, during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House on Thursday, Trump said he was 'very disappointed' by Musk's criticism of the fiscal bill and suggested that Musk's opposition was down to the elimination of electric vehicle subsidies. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. Trump also threatened to terminate federal contracts and subsidies for Musk's companies, including Tesla and SpaceX, stating that this would save the US government billions of dollars. Trump and Epstein were acquaintances in the 1980s and 1990s, often seen at social occasions together in New York and Palm Beach, Florida. Their appearances together were documented in news coverage and social pages at the time, while US media reported the two became close during the 1990s when Epstein bought a mansion near Trump's Mar-a-Lago compound in Palm Beach. A 1992 video published by NBC News shows Trump and Epstein socialising and watching dancers at a party hosted at Mar-a-Lago. In a 2002 profile of Epstein by New York Magazine, Trump was quoted describing Epstein as a 'terrific guy' who enjoyed the company of beautiful women 'on the younger side'. 'I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump said. Flight logs released during court proceedings against Maxwell show that Trump flew on Epstein's private jet at least seven times between 1993 and 1997, occasionally with family members. Epstein's 'Black Book' – a contact directory obtained in 2015 by Gawker, a now-defunct US blog that covered celebrities and media – was later submitted as court evidence and listed multiple phone numbers and addresses for Trump, including his office, home and Mar-a-Lago. Once allies, Musk's relationship with Trump has deteriorated significantly since his criticism of Trump's fiscal policy and subsequent allegations about the Epstein files. Trump's threats to cut federal contracts with Musk's companies led to a 14 percent drop in Tesla's stock value. Musk has since called for Trump's impeachment and replacement with US Vice President JD Vance. This public spat has also drawn attention from political figures, with some Democrats demanding the release of the full Epstein files and questioning whether they are being withheld due to potential implications for Trump.


Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
The magician-in-chief: How Trump makes us miss the real story
Donald Trump is the magician-in-chief. Trump understands better, I reckon, than any US president since Ronald Reagan how to bend and manipulate the squirrel-like attention spans of much of the new and 'legacy' media to his will and advantage. Reagan and his adept advisers relied almost exclusively on choreographing flattering set pieces for television to drive his retrograde plans and stick-handle around a prickly scandal or two. Trump, having established his ubiquitous star via 'reality TV' and countless appearances on ephemeral 'chat' shows, knows full well the ways and means to inculcate himself into the American consciousness courtesy of the 'boob tube'. Still, Trump has skillfully used social media – now mostly Truth Social – to hone his trademark trick: Misdirection. Like any seasoned illusionist, he appreciates how to draw the public's eye and ear away from what demands scrutiny. His aim is twofold: To advance his revolutionary agenda and to obscure the damage that agenda inflicts. When, in early 2020, a new, lethal virus emerged and spread rapidly as the death toll mounted, Trump dismissed the COVID-19 threat, peddled unproven cures such as hydroxychloroquine, and even suggested injecting disinfectant as a possible remedy. Trump's bizarre provocations were deliberate and meant, in large measure, to delay and deflect thorough review of his administration's slow, chaotic response. Trump grasps that in the digital age, outrage is oxygen. By provoking conflict and controversy at a relentless pace, he controls the focus and tempo of public discourse. Armed with a cellphone – likely embossed with the presidential seal – and a glint of inspiration, Trump can instantly shape or reshape the dominant 'news' narrative. He does this by flashing shiny, fleeting baubles that further his parochial interests, while more consequential matters drift by like a passing cloud, unnoticed – leaving the hard, complex stuff to fade into neglect. Trump is the human equivalent of a 24/7 cable news outlet pumping out intriguing content that the real cable news channels are happily addicted to – admitted or not. So, in the disconcerting face of the sudden, caustic split with Elon Musk and a festering revolt in the Senate over his signature 'big, beautiful' budget, Trump pulled out of his top hat a fantastical 'channel-changer' that provoked awe and disbelief. According to NBC News, the president of the United States 'reposted a baseless claim on Truth Social that former President Joe Biden was executed in 2020 and replaced with clones or robots'. Given that the president of the United States shared the 'conspiracy theory' with his 10 million followers, and, by extension, the rest of us, an NBC correspondent was required to contact the White House to determine the following: First, whether America's head of state 'believed' that Biden was executed in 2020. Second, why did America's head of state amplify a post claiming an executed Biden had been replaced by a clone? Let me help NBC News and the dozens of reporters who were compelled to ask the White House the same absurd questions in the pursuit of 'clarity'. Despite his, ah, bluster and eccentricities, I can confidently suggest that Trump does not 'believe' that Biden was executed in 2020. Trump trumpeted this nonsense to get NBC News and other scribes fixated on the latest shiny bauble instead of exploring how his 'big, beautiful' bill will strip millions of Americans of their health insurance and dilate the US deficit. To dismiss Trump's expert ability to train the world's gaze where he wants it as a 'distraction' is, I think, too easy and simplistic since, by now, we ought to have become wise to the ruse. What Trump wields is far more practised and pernicious. He doesn't just distract – he rewrites the story in real time, making the serious seem trivial, and the trivial seem epochal. Oh, and he figured out long ago that most political observers are far more captivated by personality than policy. Trump also recognises that the presidency isn't only about power. It's about stagecraft. He is not preoccupied by nuance or accountability. He revels in spectacle. And the spectacle always wins out. As such, Trump continues to beguile and enthral with his studied performances grounded, as they are, in the gravitational pull and intoxicating prestige of occupying the Oval Office. The Beltway press is conditioned to look where the president points – again and again. On reliable cue, Trump announced, by presidential decree, that the White House counsel and attorney general would probe allegations that Biden's aides may have 'covered up' his 'cognitive decline' and used an autopen to sign off on major policies without his knowledge or consent. For his agitated part, Biden issued a statement on Thursday calling Trump's calculated gambit a 'distraction', while insisting that he made the 'decisions during my presidency'. The 'investigation' comes on the convenient heels of a book, co-authored by CNN host Jake Tapper, detailing Biden's alleged waning mental acuity while in office. The book's detractors have accused Tapper of revising the record as a sop to right-wing personalities since, they insist, he and CNN previously poo-pooed reports of Biden's faltering mind and body. Meanwhile, the manufactured brouhaha and deepening, vitriolic rupture of the Trump-Musk bromance, have reduced the resurrection of Trump's racially tinged travel ban to an afterthought. Once the subject of fierce legal and moral opposition, it has returned with barely a whisper of resistance – another example of how Trump's theatrics serve to smother the dangerous intent beneath the enticing din. What to do? A responsible newsroom must avoid as best it can serving as marionettes to Trump's cynical schemes. That translates into ignoring the impulse to treat every incendiary outburst, insult, or incitement as urgent or newsworthy. Editors and producers should ask: Whose interests are being served by this coverage? If the answer is Trump's, pause or take a refreshing pass. Journalists should redirect the lens towards substance, not stunts. That involves patience and the discipline to pose another important question: What is being hidden behind the colourful camouflage? The antidote to manipulation is not detachment – it's sharp, vigilant coverage of the profound, human consequences of the president's actions, not his antics. In its exhausting dance with Donald Trump, the fourth estate can and must stop mistaking the fireworks for the fire. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Has DOGE really saved the US government $180bn?
President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk celebrated their efforts to slash federal spending before Musk stepped away from his White House work. Musk wore a black DOGE hat over a bruised right eye that he blamed on his young son's punch. That was May 30 in the Oval Office. Days later, the two billionaires were punching at each other on the social media platforms they own. Their fight began over federal tax and spending legislation, with Musk calling a Trump-backed bill 'a disgusting abomination' and Trump saying he was 'very disappointed' with Musk. Soon, Musk claimed credit for Trump and Republicans winning in 2024, and Trump threatened to cut off Musk's companies' federal contracts. I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025The public display of animosity called into question the fate of months of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) work. Under Musk's oversight and with Trump's approval, DOGE axed billions of dollars in grants for state health departments and scientific research. It gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers. It all but shuttered the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the decades-old department that provides food and healthcare to people in other countries. Still, as Musk ended his work with DOGE, it was clear that the group's cost-cutting achievements fell short of Musk's goals. A week before Trump won his second term, Musk said he expected to cut 'at least $2 trillion', without identifying a timeframe for doing it. He later lowered that to $1 trillion. But both figures were wildly unrealistic. Even if Musk could have eliminated every dollar of non-defence discretionary spending – everything from air traffic control, medical research, federal prosecutors and prisons to border control, US embassies and national parks – he wouldn't have reached his $1 trillion goal. As of early June, DOGE's online 'wall of receipts' accounting of federal dollars cut said that the government had cut $180 billion. But analyses by PolitiFact, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the conservative American Enterprise Institute showed that the tallies Musk provided were flawed. And total 2025 federal spending under Trump has continued to grow. Nat Malkus, an education policy specialist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said DOGE's cuts showed an 'appetite for recklessness', and its error and exaggeration-filled wall of receipts provided 'ample grounds for scepticism' about its accuracy. 'Beyond that, the receipts only cover a fraction of their actions, making their accomplishments and savings impossible to verify,' Malkus said. DOGE's 'wall of receipts' reported that the $180bn savings represented a combination of actions, including lease and grant cancellations, 'fraud and improper payment deletion' and eliminating employees. During their May 30 news conference, Musk predicted savings would rise to $1 trillion, but their public dispute made DOGE's future more uncertain. A few top lieutenants had already departed; dozens of DOGE employees remained. DOGE says its wall of receipts is incomplete: 'We are working to upload all of our receipts in a digestible and transparent manner consistent with applicable rules and regulations,' the website says, calling its list 'a subset of contract, grant, and lease cancellations, representing ~30 percent of total savings.' And it has errors. For example, DOGE said it would save $740,457 by ending a lease that housed records for the Barack Obama Presidential Library. But the federal government had already planned to end that lease in 2025. The property's leasing company told PolitiFact on May 30 that the government is still using the property and paying rent. If the government leaves before September, it will have to continue paying under the lease's terms, unless another tenant is secured. Some of DOGE's contract and grant cancellations are being litigated, and the government may ultimately be required to fulfil them. 'Even for grants and contracts that DOGE cut, the claimed savings may never be realised,' Joshua Sewell, a federal budget expert at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said. The $180bn figure was aspirational and projected, PolitiFact found. 'Itemised, verifiable cuts – those with receipts – are roughly half that amount,' said Dominik Lett, a budget policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'Of those itemised cuts, there are numerous clerical errors and inflated savings values.' Government officials did not respond to our questions about how many federal employees were cut. The New York Times reported that as of May 12, the government reduced its workforce by roughly 135,000, including cuts and buyouts. That amounts to a tiny portion of the 2.4 million federal workforce, with similarly modest savings in salaries. The Reuters news agency, counting early retirements in addition to buyouts and firings, said the tally was 260,000. When 75,000 employees who took buyouts come off the books in October, that will save about $10bn a year, or 0.1 percent of federal spending, Jessica Riedl, an expert on the federal budget at the conservative Manhattan Institute, wrote in an essay for The Atlantic. (Trump quoted the 75,000 figure during his May 30 news conference.) But the government could end up hiring contractors to perform some of that work, further shrinking those savings. Not every agency or department faced widespread cuts. The Justice Department's staffing was reduced by about 1 percent, The New York Times found. But nearly all employees were cut at USAID and AmeriCorps. Nearly half of the Education Department's staff were cut. Federal government spending continues to rise. In April 2025, total spending was $594bn, $27bn more than in April 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's a 5 percent increase. The largest spending decrease – $17bn – came in the Department of Education, which Trump promised to eliminate. But Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid outlays rose, as did some department spending, including in agriculture and defence. Some of DOGE's line items show savings of zero dollars, which a White House spokesperson said means that the money has been spent but won't be renewed, such as for news subscriptions or training. It also showed some negative values for grants; a State Department spokesperson said they were caused by an input error that had since been corrected, although it was still on the site as of about noon ET (16:00 GMT) on June 5. It's unclear whether DOGE's spending cuts will be permanent because federal law requires the executive branch to send proposed cuts, known as 'rescissions', to Congress for approval. The White House on June 3 sent a $9.4bn package of rescission cuts to Congress that includes cutting foreign aid. 'DOGE can kill projects, but the spending doesn't become savings until Congress votes to 'unspend' the money,' Malkus said. DOGE also increased some government costs, such as those incurred when defending against lawsuits. DOGE left no state untouched, according to an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress. It terminated leases and grants to health departments, universities and volunteer programmes across the country. DOGE listed terminations of hundreds of millions of dollars in state health department grants, which represented some of the group's biggest 'savings'. These cuts targeted health departments in states including Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. The administration said the cuts mostly affected money used for the COVID-19 pandemic response. Twenty-three states challenged the cuts in a lawsuit that argued the move caused states 'tremendous chaos' including 'immediate harm to public health initiatives and the termination of large numbers of state and local public health employees and contractors'. In mid-May, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring the federal government to release the frozen funding. 'These funds support state and local health departments in combatting infectious diseases, as well as offering mental health services and funding addiction treatment programmes,' said Lynn Sutfin, a state Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson in Michigan, one of the state plaintiffs. Other cuts included nearly $400m in AmeriCorps grants, resulting in the terminations of more than 32,000 AmeriCorps members and volunteers, and the historic gutting of USAID, the nation's federal international humanitarian and development arm. One local AmeriCorps programme, Serve Louisiana, filed a lawsuit to stop cuts to its $700,000 grant that aimed to place 37 workers with Louisiana nonprofits, including a food bank, a library and Boys and Girls Clubs, through August. As of June 2, the lawsuit was ongoing. 'Our nonprofit partners are now scrambling to adapt without the help they counted on,' Serve Louisiana Executive Director Lisa Moore said. USAID programmes aimed to reduce hunger and disease and promote democracy globally. In fiscal year 2024, USAID made up 0.3 percent of the federal budget. Weeks after Trump's inauguration, DOGE froze nearly all of USAID's spending and terminated nearly all employees. Musk boasted on February 3 that DOGE had fed 'USAID into the wood chipper', and two weeks later he wielded a chainsaw at a conservative political event to symbolise what he said was his attack on federal bureaucracy. USAID's dismantling had sprawling global effects. In Ukraine – the largest recipient of USAID funds since Russia's 2022 invasion – regional media outlets lost funding and medical charities shuttered programmes that screened for and treated tuberculosis and HIV, NPR reported. US diplomats in Malawi said US funding cuts to the United Nations World Food Programme increased criminal activity, sexual violence and human trafficking in a large refugee camp, ProPublica reported. American embassy officials in Kenya said funding cuts to refugee camp food programmes led to violent demonstrations, ProPublica said. People also died because of the chaotic aid disruptions, according to Al Jazeera, NPR, The Associated Press, and other news organisations. The consequences are still unspooling. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that up to four million people in Africa might die from treatable diseases without USAID funding. Former USAID officials told Reuters that, because of the cuts, food rations worth $98m that could supply 3.5 million people for a month are decaying in warehouses and some are likely to be destroyed. The World Health Organization cautioned in March that USAID cuts could trigger a global increase in tuberculosis cases and deaths. Musk and Trump said that DOGE would ferret out fraud, too. Government reports predating Trump's current term show fraud is a real problem, but so far DOGE has not proven that it has recently uncovered mass fraud. A White House spokesperson said there had been 50 criminal referrals stemming from DOGE's work and pointed to three individuals charged for voting as a noncitizen in New York or Florida. Statements by federal prosecutors said that DOGE assisted with the cases. Such cases had been prosecuted before DOGE's creation.