Watch: After Trump-Putin Call, Russia Pummels Ukraine With Strikes
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Sparks Gun Group Lawsuit Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Several gun rights groups filed a lawsuit to dismantle what is left of the National Firearms Act (NFA) shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump signed his package of tax breaks and spending cuts into law on Friday. The legislation reduced the NFA's excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and any other weapons to $0. Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit—which they have dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Lawsuit"—that the Supreme Court had upheld the NFA as a tax statute and the constitutional justification for it no longer applies once the tax is eliminated. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—which are listed as defendants in the lawsuit—for comment via a contact form on the DOJ's website and email. File photo: Donald Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. File photo: Donald Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, Context The National Firearms Act was first enacted in 1934 to regulates firearms considered the most dangerous and crack down on gangland crime in the Prohibition era. The law had imposed a $200 tax on machine guns and shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches, and also required the federal registration of these types of firearms. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminates the $200 fee that gun owners are charged when purchasing silencers and short-barreled rifles, but it remains in effect for machine guns and explosive devices. What To Know In a press release on Thursday, Gun Owners of America said its team had been "working behind the scenes" with lawmakers since the November election to repeal the NFA fully. The group said congressional Republicans had allowed "an unelected bureaucrat" to block the provision. GOA added that Congress ultimately "settled for reducing the NFA's $200 excise tax to $0 on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons or AOWs—teeing up GOA's legal challenge." GOA also said it has also long argued that the NFA's registration mandates "violate the Second Amendment and are an unconstitutional overreach of federal power." The authors of the NFA "left no doubt that the NFA was an exercise of the taxing power, and the Supreme Court upheld it on that basis," says the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. "But the NFA no longer imposes any tax on the vast majority of firearms it purports to regulate. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress and the President enacted on July 4, 2025, zeros the manufacture and transfer tax on nearly all NFA-regulated firearms. That means the constitutional foundation on which the NFA rested has dissolved. And the NFA cannot be upheld under any other Article I power. With respect to the untaxed firearms, the Act is now unconstitutional." What People Are Saying Erich Pratt, senior vice president of GOA, said in a statement: "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dismantle one of the most abusive federal gun control laws on the books. With the tax struck down by Congress, the rest of the NFA is standing on air. We're ready to take this fight to the courts and finally end the federal registry once and for all." Sam Paredes said in a statement on behalf of the board for Gun Owners Foundation: "The Supreme Court has made clear that the NFA survives only as a tax law. Once the President signs this bill and the tax disappears, the registry becomes an unconstitutional relic. GOF is prepared to go to court and challenge every remaining provision that violates the Second Amendment." Representative Mike Thompson, a Democrat and chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday: "Congressional Republicans are giving a handout to the gun lobby by eliminating the $200 tax on silencers and easily concealable short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. We've regulated silencers and these guns for 90+ years for a reason: to keep people safe." Emma Brown, the executive director of GIFFORDS, an organization focused on preventing gun violence, said in a statement this week: "Almost 100 years of precedent has kept silencers and short-barreled firearms out of easy reach for criminals. But with this bill, Republicans are laying the groundwork to gut safeguards that stopped criminals from getting these deadly weapons. This vote is proof that the 'law and order' rhetoric Donald Trump has pushed for years rings hollow. In siding with the gun industry CEOs, he has handed criminals a win, and communities will suffer the deadly consequences." What Happens Next The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the NFA's registration and transfer requirements pertaining to untaxed firearms "exceed Congress's enumerated powers" and block the defendants from "implementing, enforcing, or otherwise acting under the authority of the NFA with respect to untaxed firearms."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Social Security Tax U-Turn — What Retirees Need To Know Now
On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised over and over that he wanted to end taxes on Social Security — a vow that retirees backed. However, in his 'Big Beautiful Bill,' there is no mention of his pledge. Instead, there is a proposal to give seniors over 65 a $4,000 deduction that could help lower taxes, CBS News reported. Learn More: Read Next: With the House having officially passed the bill on July 3, seniors will not get the tax break Trump guaranteed. Here's why the elimination of Social Security taxes is not in the bill, and what retirees should know. While plenty of retirees loved the idea of not paying taxes on Social Security, critics voiced concern over the unrealistic and unaffordable proposal. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated it would be 'unwise' because of the cost factor, and money expert and founder of Be Fluent in Finance Andrew Lokenauth agreed. 'Removing Social Security taxes would've cost the program about $45 billion annually,' he said. 'The program's already facing serious funding issues, and taking away this revenue stream would've been like throwing gasoline on a fire.' He added, 'From what I've seen working with retirement planning, the Social Security trust fund's gonna run dry by 2033, and removing the tax would've made that happen even faster. The math just didn't work — and I think Trump's team knew it.' Be Aware: It's clear Trump broke his promise and is trying to rectify it with a $4,000 deduction called the 'enhanced deduction for seniors,' per CBS. According to Lokenauth, it can help some retirees. 'The temporary standard deduction increase is actually pretty significant for lower-income seniors,' he said. ' I worked with a client last month who'd benefit about $880 annually from this change — she's single, 68 and makes about $40K.' He went on to explain that, 'It's not as generous as eliminating Social Security taxes completely — that could've saved some retirees $2-3K annually — but it's targeted at folks who need it most.' But the concession wouldn't help everyone on Social Security. The maximum Social Security benefit in 2025 is $5,108/month, or $61,296 a year. 'If a retiree has even modest supplemental income — from a pension, IRA withdrawals or rental income — they're likely hitting the 85% taxable range, so no tax relief on Social Security means many retirees are handing Uncle Sam more of their fixed income than they expected,' Peter Diamond, a Federally Licensed Tax, Accounting, Real Estate, and Structure and Certified Bankability Expert® explained. With that in mind, Diamond said most retirees don't have other revenue sources. 'They're not flipping properties or trading options on their phones,' he said. 'They're living off what they saved, and Social Security is often the biggest piece. So when a campaign says you won't be taxed, then quietly drops it later? That's not just a political pivot — it's a punch to the wallet.' A major thing to note is that if Social Security is your only income, it's likely you won't pay federal tax. 'But once you hit certain income thresholds, the IRS starts dipping its hand in,' Diamond said. As of 2025, according to T. Rowe Price: If you're single and your combined income (that's adjusted gross income + nontaxable interest + 50% of your Social Security) is: Over $25,000, up to 50% of your benefits may be taxable. Over $34,000, up to 85% may be taxable. For married couples filing jointly: Over $32,000, up to 50% is taxable. Over $44,000, up to 85% is taxable. According to Lokenauth the income thresholds haven't changed since the 80s, which is 'nuts.' 'Due to inflation, about 50% of seniors now pay these taxes versus just 10% when implemented, and I see this impact every day — middle-class retirees getting pushed into higher tax brackets because these thresholds are never adjusted for inflation,' he explained. He added, 'From my experience working with retirees, most would rather see those thresholds updated than eliminate the tax entirely. That'd be a more targeted fix that wouldn't threaten Social Security's stability.' Another important key element to keep in mind regarding Social Security is knowing your strategy, meaning when you plan on collecting your benefits. The longer you wait, the higher monthly payment you'll receive. 'While you become eligible to claim your own Social Security benefits at age 62, that might not be the best filing strategy for you,' said Eric Mangold, CWS Founder of Argosy Wealth Management. This is especially true for married couples who could gain potential spousal benefits. According to Mangold, 'you should know what filing strategy makes the most sense for you and puts the most money in your pocket.' He explained, 'How you choose to file can mean the difference of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars over the course of your retirement.' There's no denying that Trump walked back his pledge to end Social Security taxes. He continued to make promises knowing the program is financially struggling, but not including the proposal in the bill was the right choice, according to Lokenauth because it would have worsened the situation. 'The program needs every revenue stream it can get,' he said. 'While Trump's original promise sounded great, it would've accelerated the program's financial problems.' Lokenauth explained, 'The standard deduction boost is actually smart policy. It helps lower-income seniors who really need it — I've seen firsthand how an extra $500 to $1000 annually can make a real difference for many of my retired clients living on fixed incomes.' Trump flipped his stance, and retirees will not receive the tax break on Social Security he vowed. While it would have been a win for middle-class retirees, it would have bankrupted the program, according to experts. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement The 5 Car Brands Named the Least Reliable of 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump's Social Security Tax U-Turn — What Retirees Need To Know Now
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump has given up on 'America First' in one arena: Sports
In March 2018, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson drafted a letter outlining nine categories of people who would be eligible for visas around the games, according to a copy reviewed by POLITICO. But those campaigning to bring the World Cup to the United States feared that Tillerson's word might not be persuasive enough to win over foreign representatives. 'They were calling me constantly trying to get me to come on board,' Trump recounted four months later while sitting alongside FIFA President Gianni Infantino and then-U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro. 'But it only took one call because when I heard 'World Cup,' I wanted to do it.' On May 2, Trump secretly signed his own letter striking a very different tone about international travel than his solicitor general's argument later that month before the Supreme Court that a blanket ban was necessary to protect national security. The letter, facilitated by then-adviser Jared Kushner, included Trump's personal guarantee that 'all eligible athletes, officials, and fans from all countries around the world would be able to enter the United States without discrimination.' The United Bid team traveled to more than fifty countries with the letter as a centerpiece of a final sales pitch shopped to soccer officials ahead of FIFA's vote, according to two people involved with the United Bid who were granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy. 'When someone had hesitation and said, 'Hey, there's a lot going on with the U.S. — travel bans, visa issues,'' one of the people said. 'We'd say, 'Don't worry about it. We talked to the President, and here's the letter from him saying that it's not going to be an issue.'' That June, the American bid prevailed, and organizers set out to plan games across the three countries even as Trump pushed for a 2,000-mile border wall with Mexico and blew up a Canadian-hosted G7 summit after calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau 'dishonest and weak.' At the time, the tournament itself was a distant abstraction, two presidential terms away, with little more for Trump to do but bask in his success helping to sell the bid. 'So let's see, 2026 — I won't be here,' Trump said with Infantino and Cordeiro in 2018. 'Maybe they'll extend the term.' His successor, Joe Biden, proceeded under Trump's commitments to FIFA about the World Cup. Federal agencies began to have preliminary conversations about visas and security funding. At the same time, 16 host cities — including 11 across the United States — were designated, each standing up a host committee to coordinate everything outside the stadiums.
