New questions emerge from the new charges in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The sudden return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States on Friday to face federal charges of smuggling migrants across the country was a messaging triumph for the Trump administration.
The news deflected public attention from a series of unanimous court rulings—including a Supreme Court decision—that President Donald Trump did not have the power to unilaterally detain and deport individuals to foreign prisons without a review by a judge.
And the allegations against Abrego Garcia are damning. A federal grand jury found that the 29-year-old was an MS-13 member who transported thousands of undocumented immigrants, including children, from Texas to states across the country for profit for nine years. He allegedly also transported firearms and drugs, abused female migrants and was linked to an incident in Mexico where a tractor-trailer overturned and killed 50 migrants.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer representing Abrego-Garcia, said Saturday that he planned to meet his client for the first time on Sunday, but declined to further comment.
A former senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation, said he was struck by the large amount of resources the DOJ put into investigating Abrego Garcia.
'It is odd that they would use all of these folks to go after a low-level driver,' said the official. 'Usually, we used the driver to go after the coyotes and up if we could. But they really wanted to get this guy and it looks like they found a path.'
In a telephone interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump hailed Abrego Garcia's indictment and predicted it would be easy for federal prosecutors to convict him. 'I think it should be,' he said. 'It should be.'
Multiple questions about Abrego Garcia, the case against him, and the political fallout remain unanswered.
For months, Abrego Garcia's lawyers, his wife, and some Democrats, have denied that he was an MS-13 gang member. They generally portrayed him as a Maryland construction worker and claimed he was transporting co-workers when a Tennessee state trooper stopped him on Interstate 40 on November 30, 2022.
The indictment paints a different picture: Abrego Garcia was transporting nine Hispanic males without identification or luggage in a Chevrolet Suburban. Prosecutors allege he 'knowingly and falsely' told the trooper they 'had been in St. Louis for two weeks doing construction' and were returning to Maryland.
However, license plate reader data showed that the Suburban had not been near St. Louis for twelve months. Instead, it had been in Houston where, according to prosecutors, Abrego Garcia had picked up the men. The vehicle was not carrying tools or construction equipment, but its rear cargo area had been modified with makeshift seating to transport more passengers.
The apparent strength of the government's case could reignite debate among Democrats about the risks of focusing on Abrego Garcia's case. For weeks, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and other Democrats emphasized that their criticism targeted Trump's decision to unilaterally deport Abrego Garcia without judicial oversight, not a defense of Abrego Garcia himself.
When Welker asked about Van Hollen, President Trump mocked the Senator and said defending the Abrego Garcia would backfire on Democrats.
'He's a loser. The guy's a loser,' Trump said, referring to Van Hollen. 'They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear. He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.'
Van Hollen defended his stance in a CNN interview. 'You know, I will never apologize for defending the Constitution,' he said. 'In fact, it's the Trump administration and all his cronies who should apologize to the country for putting us through this unnecessary situation.'
In an Oval Office visit on April 15, 2025, Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Trump administration officials asserted that it was not possible for the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador as the Supreme Court had ordered.
El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele mocked a reporter for asking whether he would do so.'How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States?' Bukele said, sitting beside Trump in the Oval Office. 'Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.'
Trump, in turn, chided the assembled journalists, saying, 'They'd love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people.'
Bondi said only El Salvador could decide whether to return Bukele. 'If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane,' said Bondi said. 'That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.'
Yet, in a Friday press conference at the Justice Department, Bondi described the return of Abrego Garcia as smooth and seamless. 'We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Abrego Garcia to the United States,' she said. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.'
Asked what had changed since the traffic stop in 2022, she lauded Trump. 'What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States,' Bondi said, 'and our borders are again secure.'
In an unusual move, Bondi also described allegations against Abrego Garcia that were not included in the indictment. She said that co-conspirators alleged that Abrego Garcia 'solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor' and 'played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.'
For decades, attorneys general from both parties and state and local prosecutors have generally accused defendants of crimes only for which a grand jury indicted them. Discussing other potential crimes has long been regarded as an abuse of prosecutorial power, risking unfair harm to defendants' reputations.
A former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, citing fears of retaliation, said that Bondi often speaks as a partisan Trump loyalist, not a neutral law enforcement official.
'She says the president's name every time,' said the former DOJ official. 'She talks more like a politician, stumping for a candidate than an attorney general who is out there talking independently. You can see that in the words she uses.'
The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that people close to the matter said the indictment prompted the resignation of a veteran career prosecutor who headed the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office where the case was filed. The Journal did not name the prosecutor.
However, days after Abrego Garcia was indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville, Ben Schrader, the head of criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville, resigned.
'Earlier today, after nearly 15 years as an Assistant United States Attorney, I resigned as Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee,' Schrader posted on LinkedIn. 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. I wish all of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and across the Department the best as they seek to do justice on behalf of the American people.'
Asked about Schrader's resignation by NBC News, a spokesperson for the Justice Department said it does not comment on personnel changes. Schrader, reached by NBC News via text on his cell phone, sent a two-word reply when asked why he had resigned: 'No comment.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen' move that would have helped his election case
In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly's spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago. Harmon's move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker's upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote. The Oak Park Democrat's maneuver, characterized by critics as 'brazen' and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard. Blowback to Harmon's action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results. 'This is a terrible look,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. 'I don't recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.' But in an interview with the Tribune, Harmon repeatedly maintained his effort was justified and disputed criticism that it was self-serving. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker — who previously said former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's February conviction was a 'vital reminder that we must maintain our vigilance in cleaning up government' — also defended Harmon and said their political party takes ethics seriously. Still, Harmon's activity is reflective of a political culture in Springfield where officials talk a good game about the importance of ethics in government but routinely stop short of adopting robust laws governing their conduct. After a legislative session that ended last weekend with lawmakers never advancing significant ethics bills, Democratic House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside maintained that such legislation 'remains a top priority' for him. He pointed to ethics proposals approved during his first year as speaker in 2021 after Madigan was ousted while federal investigators were closing in. Welch said current 'ethics laws and the laws of the state of Illinois worked' in Madigan's case — though his predecessor was charged and convicted under federal, not state, law. 'The system worked. We don't need to rush and react. We need to take our time and get things right. We don't need to react to headlines,' he said. 'We need to make sure things get properly vetted, that the House, the Senate and the governor's office can all come to agreement on these things, and we're committed to doing that.' Madigan, 83, once the state's most powerful politician, faces sentencing Friday after being convicted Feb. 12 by a jury on federal bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges that alleged he used his office to enhance his power, line his pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. But pieces of the post-Madigan changes that Welch points to still draw criticism because they are weaker at holding lawmakers in Illinois accountable than laws in other states. In particular, a revolving-door clause only requires lawmakers to wait a maximum of six months to become a lobbyist if they leave office in the middle of their term. And, if they complete their term in office, they can start as a lobbyist the next day. Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, the top Republican on the House Ethics & Elections Committee, said the lack of substantive action on ethics this spring should make it 'clear to any objective observer — any observer, really, of the state government — that the Democratic majority does not care about ethics reform, does not believe we need ethics reform and is not going to take serious action to enact ethics reform.' Rep. Maurice West, the Rockford Democrat who chairs the House committee on ethics, said his panel never held hearings on major ethics proposals during the spring session because there was no agreement with Senate Democrats to advance any bill. During the session, West repeatedly said the committee was set to meet to take testimony on proposed ethics changes. 'That was my expectation and hope, that there was going to be a robust conversation on ethics, but I also knew that I had to go through a process. This had to be agreed upon in both chambers to ensure … that we can get it signed into law,' West said. 'And if there's not an agreement, then it's an automatic brick.' After lawmakers adjourned, a spokesperson for Pritzker referred questions about proposed ethics laws to West, who said he had a brief conversation with the governor toward the end of the session about 'how we can partner … and collaborate on ethics over the summer.' 'That's all I have to say when it comes to the governor,' West said, declining to elaborate on any specific proposals. Cassidy, the House Democrat, said it may be time to take up each proposal on its own merits rather than jam them into one bill that requires Democrats in both chambers to agree before a vote is taken on ethics, elections and campaign finance matters. 'I just wonder if maybe we should rethink that,' she said. While any legislative movement on ethics languished in Springfield, Harmon, on the final scheduled day of the session, attempted to statutorily quash his case before the State Board of Elections, which acted following a Tribune review and inquiry about political contributions Harmon received last year. Elections board officials in March informed the Senate president that he had improperly accepted nearly $4.1 million in contributions exceeding the allowed campaign finance limits, and they threatened to levy a substantial fine. Harmon has filed an appeal and said he 'fully complied with the law.' At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. Originally described as a method allowing a candidate to compete against a wealthy self-funded opponent or to counter a well-funded opposing group's independent expenditures, the loophole has instead become a way for candidates — even if they face no opposition — to accept unlimited contributions by purposely breaking the limits themselves. Harmon, who sponsored the earlier law, has repeatedly done that himself, giving or loaning his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — to trigger the so-called 'money bomb' loophole. Harmon did it again for the 2024 campaign season when, in January 2023, he gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 even though he was not running for office last year. While members of the Illinois House are up for election every two years, state Senate seats have one two-year term and two four-year terms every 10 years. In paperwork filed with the state elections board, Harmon indicated the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election. However, board officials informed him that the loophole would be closed after the March 2024 primary. Still, from the March 2024 primary through the end of that year, state records showed his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly half of which the state board has now said was over the campaign contribution limits. In appealing the board's case, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund. Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the elections board, he could end up paying no penalty. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law.' But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not the elections board officials'. 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same,' Harmon told the Tribune. 'The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' When pressed on the political optics of his move, Harmon said the new clause 'was just intended to call attention' to differences in the way the board addresses House and Senate candidates. 'We'll revisit the bill after we win the case,' Harmon said, adding, 'We're going to proceed with the case under the law as written.' Welch acknowledged it was a backlash among his House Democrats over the Harmon-backed provision that resulted in the overall bill never advancing. 'I did inform (Harmon) after our caucus that we didn't have support for that, and if a bill came over with that in it, we would not take it,' Welch told the Tribune. Good-government advocates, stymied on key proposals again this spring, were taken aback when the Harmon clause appeared late in the session. 'I thought I'd seen everything, but I was shocked to see it in the bill,' said Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois. 'It clearly would have changed the law, but it was framed as just a clarification of existing rules so it would apply retroactively to Harmon's case. And it was buried in an enormous omnibus bill … at the last possible minute to minimize discussion. 'Just a breathtakingly cynical use of legal language and procedure,' Kaplan said, adding: 'It's bad enough that legislative leaders regularly abuse the self-funding loophole. We should be closing the loophole, not blowing it wide open for even more opportunities for pay-to-play politics and corruption.' The two-sentence clause Harmon backed would have generally expanded the period that a senator in a four-year term who breaks the caps can keep them off. But the second sentence in the Harmon clause caused the uproar on both sides of the aisle: 'This amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly is declarative of existing law,' phrasing many lawmakers interpreted to mean that, if passed, could have eliminated Harmon's election board dispute. Sen. Jil Tracy, a Quincy Republican, called the clause 'mind-blowing.' 'The language was brazen,' she said. 'My initial reaction was shock. I couldn't believe the majority would be that brazen.' She said she learned of the clause in the waning hours of the legislative session when a legal staffer told her the proposal would erase Harmon's case before the board. 'That bill would have condoned and made it appropriate to go beyond what the election code allows and to supersede the limits and create a path (to) interpret what President Harmon had done was OK,' said Tracy, a former assistant attorney general who served under both former Republican Jim Ryan and Democrat Lisa Madigan, the former speaker's daughter. 'He still argues what he did was OK, but why do a bill?' asked Tracy, a member of a Senate subcommittee on ethics. At an unrelated appearance in West Chicago on Thursday, Pritzker sought to vouch for Harmon while he said that he and his fellow Democrats in Springfield have sought to clean up a state with a culture of corruption. 'I know that the Senate president doesn't have any intention other than to make the law better,' he said. At the same time, the governor acknowledged he didn't 'know enough about the violations that have been alleged.' Another provision that raised eyebrows in the Harmon-backed legislation would have allowed statewide elected officials and state lawmakers running for federal offices to hold fundraisers on session days and the day before, as long as they're held outside of Sangamon County, which includes Springfield. A statewide ban on such fundraisers was a provision in the 2021 ethics law touted by Pritzker and other top Democrats. The new provision would have benefited Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, Pritzker's two-time running mate who's running for U.S. Senate, and a handful of state legislators who've declared their candidacies for the U.S. House. The candidates also would have been able to transfer money raised on session days for their federal campaigns into their state accounts, as long as they adhered to state contribution limits. Welch, Harmon and Pritzker's office all said they didn't know the origin of the language, which was presented in a brief committee hearing late on the final day of session as an attempt to align state law with rules governing fundraising for federal candidates. But West, giving the overall package its only public airing, couldn't explain how leaving a restriction in place only for Springfield's home county would pass legal muster. There was a feeling that it would be more ethical to keep in-session political fundraisers 'as far away from the state Capitol as possible,' West said. But Rep. Carol Ammons, an Urbana Democrat, called the provision problematic, saying: 'I don't know what difference it makes what county you're in. If you're fundraising while we're in session, you're fundraising while we're in session.' Chicago Tribune's Jeremy Gorner and Addison Wright contributed.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Dark cloud' hangs over cruise industry as complaints of crimes rise in recent years — how to stay safe at sea
Complaints of crimes and missing person reports on cruises that dock at U.S. ports have surged in recent years, fueling what one security expert calls a 'dark cloud' over an industry eager to protect its reputation. Department of Transportation figures show 48 alleged incidents between Jan. 1 and March 30 of this year: 23 reports of rape, 10 of other forms of sexual assault, seven of physical assault and seven of theft greater than $10,000. One missing U.S. national was also reported. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) There were also 47 alleged incidents in each of the first and third quarters of 2024, 50 in the fourth quarter of 2023 and 55 in the second quarter of 2023. 'All of that negative vibe and negative information puts a dark cloud over the industry,' Robert McDonald, a former Secret Service agent and lecturer on criminal justice at the University of New Haven, told Fox News in a story published May 15. Cruise lines 'want [passengers] to be comfortable spending their money.' A spokesperson for the Cruise Lines International Association told Fox News that 'crime is extremely rare on cruise ships' thanks to strict security vetting and training that "make cruise[s] one of the safest holiday options.' A mixture of large groups of people, alcohol and the sense of freedom that comes with being on vacation can create an environment that's more prone to illicit activity, says McDonald. 'Anytime we get together, those numbers are going to go up, whether that's at a resort, whether it's on a cruise ship,' he said. Among recent reports: On March 21, two men in their 30s were arrested, accused of raping a 14-year-old boy in a sauna aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship, reports the Miami Herald. Both men were charged with sexual battery of a minor, exposing themselves to a minor and molestation of a child aged 12 to 16. One man faced an additional charge of not informing another person in a sexual act of his HIV status. 'We take these allegations very seriously and immediately notified local law enforcement,' a Royal Caribbean Group spokesperson told the Herald. Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it A month later, dozens of Carnival Cruise Line passengers were banned after video of a brawl at a Galveston, Texas, terminal emerged on social media showing people kicking and punching one another as they disembarked, according to Fox News. Carnival told the news outlet the matter was referred to law enforcement, and stressed that the company 'will not tolerate such behavior.' While reports of alleged crime on the high seas may be elevated, some experts insist cruises remain a safe way to travel. If you choose to cruise, you can be proactive and make sure you understand the laws that can help keep you safe. Jurisdiction on cruise ships is a constantly moving target that can change after a vessel moves away from shore. Within 12 nautical miles of the coast, the coastal nation's criminal code typically applies; beyond 12 miles, the ship falls under the law of the country whose flag it flies. Maritime laws may also apply. Before you sail, make sure you understand which laws and regulations will apply during your trip. Statistics for reports of alleged crimes of major cruise operators appear in quarterly Department of Transportation reports, and the CDC publishes sanitation scores for each ship. This can help you decide which cruise line and which ship you're comfortable sailing on. Cruise ships have internal emergency systems, including dedicated phone lines. Report suspicious behaviour immediately. Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has no tax on tips passed? Here's where things stand
As a presidential candidate last year, Donald Trump called for no taxes on tips — an exemption from the federal income tax for all tipped income. So where does that promise stand now? There is a provision in the 'big, beautiful bill' passed by the House in May, which the Senate is now considering. The tax break is included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, so it seems likely to make it into the final version sent to Trump's desk. Plus, the Senate already voted unanimously on a separate bill that would do the same thing. Here are answers to some common questions about the 'no tax on tips' proposal: Trump first proposed to end taxation on tipped income at a campaign rally on June 9, 2024, in Las Vegas, a direct appeal to the service workers in the swing state's tourism industry. 'So this is the first time I've said this, and for those hotel workers and people that get tips, you're going to be very happy, because when I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips people [are] making,' Trump said. It was part of a broader set of proposals thrown out with little detail during the campaign, including a pledge to exempt overtime pay from income tax. It was one of Trump's more realistic promises, however, as the idea quickly gained bipartisan support, including from Kamala Harris' campaign and Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada plus Republicans such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. It was also one of a number of campaign pledges he promised would be fulfilled right away if he won a second term. The Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House, includes an income tax exemption for tips. As with the proposed $1,000 baby bonus and the exemption for income tax on overtime pay in the bill, the tips tax break would expire at the end of 2028, days before Trump's term ends. That helps Republicans in Congress keep the apparent cost of the bill down while setting up another fight on the issue just as the next president takes office. Under the House proposal, workers making less than $160,000 per year would qualify for the exemption. Tips would still have to be reported to the IRS, and they would be subject to withholding — meaning money would be taken out of each paycheck but workers would get it back if they were owed tax refunds the next April. Social Security and Medicare taxes would still apply to tipped income. The exemption would not apply to automatic gratuities for large parties at a restaurant and other service charges. The Senate passed a standalone bill called the No Tax on Tips Act in a surprise vote in late May. Rosen brought up the bill as a "unanimous consent" request, an accelerated process typically reserved for more routine issues, such as renaming post offices. But no senator objected, and the bill was quickly passed. The bill would create an income tax exemption of up to $25,000 for workers in jobs that have traditionally received tips who make less than $160,000. The exact jobs covered by the exemption would be decided by the Trump administration within 90 days of the bill's signing. As with the House bill, the Senate version would expire just as Trump leaves office. If it expires, the total cost of the measure would be about $40 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that if the measure is extended over 10 years, it would cost more than $100 billion. The White House Council of Economic Advisers — which works for Trump — estimated that the measure would increase the average take-home pay for tipped workers by $1,675 per year. The Tax Policy Center, however, noted that the amount would vary greatly depending on the job. Half of all wait staff make $32,000 or less a year, which means they already pay little or no federal income tax. But the measure would give a much bigger break to the highest-paid tipped workers who make $60,000 or more a year. "A 20 percent tip on a $200 meal is vastly different than one for the $9.95 special at Mom's Diner," the nonprofit said in an analysis. As with the exemption on overtime pay, there's a wide range of possible outcomes. It's possible that the measure would simply end up reducing the annual tax bill for the top tipped workers and have no other effects. Or it could lead customers to give more — or possibly even less — in tips to wait staff, hairdressers and others once they know the money isn't taxed. Some economists think the exemption would undercut ongoing political efforts to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, which is currently $2.13 per hour at the federal level. This article was originally published on
