Congress

How Trump’s Very MAGA Tax Cuts Break with GOP Tradition

Published

1 year ago

July 5, 2025

For decades, Republicans have extolled the virtues of removing loopholes and carveouts from the tax code, arguing it would make the system fairer and more efficient, while allowing for lower overall tax rates.

“The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity,” House Republicans led by then-Speaker Paul Ryan and then-Rep. Kevin Brady, said in their 2016 tax plan. “Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation.”

Fast forward to the present day, and one thing is for sure: President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill is not an exercise in tax simplification.

Instead, it began with a push to extend the party’s 2017 tax cuts — which despite some streamlining also introduced some complexity — and piled more on top, in line with a slew of presidential campaign promises. Add in a heavy dose of congressional politics, and the result was a sprawling and quirky piece of legislation that is distinctively Trumpy: lower taxes and a bigger pile of tax breaks.

“It’s certainly a departure from what Republicans were trying to do in 2017 and broadly a departure from what Republicans have been arguing for decades about tax reform,” Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, told me.

The question, though, is not just whether doing your taxes is complicated and annoying. It’s whether that complexity serves a particular purpose. For example, a provision in the GOP bill allows businesses to deduct expenditures on machinery and equipment entirely from their taxes, which could both encourage investment and support Trump’s reindustrialization goals.

For other key parts of the bill, several economists I spoke with worried it is the worst of all combinations: increasing the debt to pay for tax breaks that lead to neither growth nor other economically useful outcomes.

“I don’t want to say it’s vote-buying because that’s probably a normative statement that is outside of my wheelhouse, but … there’s not a lot of pro-growth stuff,” said Kent Smetters, a University of Pennsylvania business professor who serves as the faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

Take, for example, Trump’s popular campaign promises of no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. In some cases, those provisions simply reward people for their existing lifestyle. In others, it might lead businesses to restructure how they pay their employees.

It’s obviously great news either way for the employees who benefit. It’s just unclear why the government is choosing to reward these particular subsets of workers over others. (It is presumably not an accident that Trump promised this tax perk to voters as he was pushing in the last election to win Nevada, a state where many hospitality and gaming industry workers rely on tipped income.)

And cutting taxes without finding some way to offset the lost revenue — either by closing loopholes to broaden the scope of people and businesses that are taxed, like in 1986, or through some other method — leads to increased debt that can itself be a drag on growth. After all, investors are lending the money to the U.S. government rather than doing something else with it. And even after spending cuts, the new GOP tax law is still expected to add trillions to deficits over the next decade.

“The money has to come from somewhere,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

In that sense, the tax cuts under President George W. Bush weren’t the ideal way to structure policy either, as they mostly just lowered rates while increasing the debt. But this bill? “It’s worse than the Bush tax cuts because the scale is so much bigger, and there’s a lot more weird stuff in it,” Auerbach said.

The gargantuan scale and eccentricity of the tax package is a reflection, above all, of the president who propelled it into law, and it reveals how much the Republican Party has changed under his leadership. In the 2016 GOP policy document, under Ryan and Brady’s direction, the party cited tax reform legislation passed in 1986 — which decreased the number of tax brackets, slashed deductions and lowered rates — as a guiding light, saying the party’s goal was to “replicate and build upon this achievement.”

But this is now the party of Donald Trump, not Ronald Reagan.

Trump, in a 1999 Wall Street Journal op-ed, referred to the bipartisan 1986 law as “an offense against the working man,” decrying the removal of certain deductions as “predictably disastrous.”

Now the Trump administration needs to defend the law and all its peculiarities.

Joe Lavorgna, who works at the Treasury Department as a counselor to Secretary Scott Bessent, said many critiques of the new law miss the point. A critical priority for Trump, he said, was avoiding the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts, which would have led to higher tax rates and therefore slower growth.

He said language that allows people to deduct the interest they pay on auto loans for American-made cars, for example, will help boost the goal of having a “vibrant, healthy” domestic car industry.

Lavorgna also said the provision removing taxes on overtime will lead to more output. “Anything that incentivizes people to work an extra hour because they’re not going to be taxed on it or be taxed at the same rate” creates benefits for the economy, he said. “It’s not a giveaway. They’re creating something.”

As for no tax on tips? That will “help people who have been under significant cost of living pressure,” he said.

Ultimately, what’s clear is that cutting taxes is still the centerpiece of the Republican Party — the rallying cry that could bring together a fractious governing coalition.

But tax reform? That conservative dream seems to have died quietly.

Congress

Capitol agenda: GOP mum on returning Miller’s campaign cash

Published

2 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Max Miller gave more than $70,000 in campaign cash to over a dozen congressional Republicans in the cycle’s most competitive races.

So far, most of those members aren’t saying whether or not they will return it.

The Dependable Conservative Leadership PAC kicked money to 16 vulnerable GOP candidates for Congress, according to FEC filings. The PAC is aligned with Miller, who has continued his reelection bid while denying allegations of domestic abuse.

The donations put these members in a politically delicate position as they have welcomed the cash in their fights to hold onto their seats this November — and help the party protect its fragile majorities in both chambers.

Spokespeople in the congressional and campaign offices for 13 of the 16 candidates who took the Miller-aligned money did not respond to requests for comment on if they planned to return the funding.

Only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstad said it had already returned its contribution.

Meanwhile, a campaign spokesperson for Rep. Mike Lawler said the incumbent Republican had no plans to relinquish the money. He instead slammed Democratic challenger Cait Conley for attending a fundraiser hosted by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 after allegations of involvement in a prostitution ring.

And Derrick Van Orden, asked Tuesday night about the contribution he received from Miller during about an interview about the results of his state’s primary elections, refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller “allegations” he had heard about “the day before yesterday.”

The recipients of Miller’s campaign cash who didn’t respond to inquiries include: Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Zach Nunn, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Nick Begich III, Tom Barrett, Juan Ciscomani, Gabe Evans, Tom Kean Jr., Jen Kiggans, and David Valadao.

Sen. Jon Husted is also staying quiet about whether he’ll return the cash. He previously said Miller should not run for reelection after Emily Miller — Max Miller’s ex-wife and Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno‘s daughter — accused her former husband of assaulting herself and their young child.

Democrats are already seizing on the matter, with a campaign spokesperson for Mackenzie’s opponent, Bob Brooks, saying in a statement the GOP incumbent is “open for business for whoever’s willing to pay up, no questions asked.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday Democrats are “shameless hypocrites who conveniently look the other way when their vulnerable members are bankrolled by scandal-plagued Democrats like [former Rep.] Eric Swalwell.”

The NRCC also claimed that some of the Democrats who said they’d give away Swalwell campaign contributions have, in fact, not returned the money as promised.

Unlike Miller, Swalwell resigned in April and ended his gubernatorial bid in California amid intense pressure from inside his own party over sexual assault allegations he denies.

What else we’re watching:

— NANCY PELOSI CORRECTS THE RECORD ON BIDEN: For the first time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi disclosed what she told President Joe Biden before he withdrew his 2024 presidential reelection bid. “I only said to President Biden, ‘I’ve come to question the polling that you have and how your campaign is being conducted. I think there has to be a better campaign to win the White House,’” she shared Tuesday. Pelosi’s comments — shared on stage with Jonathan Martin at Blue Light News’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit — shed new light on the scramble that led to Biden dropping his campaign. But she pushed back on the narrative that she puppeteered the president’s withdrawal. She added she advised Biden to hear from outside pollsters and told him, “I think the public would like to hear that you’ve had testing that demonstrates that you can serve.”

— JEFFRIES VAGUE ON IMMIGRATION AGENDA: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Tuesday said Democrats are “committed to an accountability agenda” on immigration should they take the majority. But the New Yorker offered few specifics on what immigration policies a future House Democratic majority might pursue. “We’ll have a conversation about what dramatic change looks like” after November, Jeffries said, adding that what “unites the entirety of the House Democratic caucus family” is that “immigration enforcement should be fair, just and humane in this country.”

Riley Rogerson and Joey Fox contributed to this report.

Congress

Republicans stay mum on whether they’ll return campaign cash from embattled Max Miller

Published

5 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Max Miller has kicked campaign cash to more than a dozen fellow Republicans competing in some of the midterm’s tightest races. Few are saying whether they now have plans to return the money as the Ohio lawmaker seeks reelection despite serious allegations of domestic abuse.

According to records filed with the Federal Elections Commission, Miller’s Dependable Conservative Leadership PAC has made contributions to 16 GOP incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in Congress.

The money — more than $70,000 in all — has largely been donated in increments of $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000. In a few cases, such as with Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), the PAC maxed out with $10,000 donations.

Of these 16 Republicans who received money from Miller this cycle contacted this week by Blue Light News, only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstad of Minnesota said it had already returned its $5,000 contribution.

A campaign spokesman for Lawler, meanwhile, said the incumbent Republican had no plans to relinquish the money, noting that Democratic challenger Cait Conley had attended a fundraiser hosted for her by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 amid a prostitution scandal.

But spokespeople in the congressional offices and campaigns for the other 14 candidates did not return requests for comment, underscoring the uncomfortable situation Republicans find themselves in as they seek to distance themselves from Miller without giving up any cash advantage in the final weeks leading up to the November elections.

Those staying silent now include Husted, who is facing a tough election against former Sen. Sherrod Brown. Husted said Miller should not run for reelection after Emily Miller — Max Miller’s ex-wife and fellow Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno’s daughter — accused her former husband of assaulting her and their young child.

Miller has denied the accusations. Spokespeople for his campaign and PAC did not respond to requests for comment.

Other Republican candidates who have remained quiet in recent days about whether they’ll give Miller back his money are Pennsylvania Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie and Brian Fitzpatrick, as well as Iowa Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

They also include Reps. Nick Begich III of Alaska, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, Gabe Evans of Colorado, Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, David Valadao of California and Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin.

Van Orden, asked Tuesday night about the $2,500 contribution he received from Miller during about an interview about the results of his state’s primary elections, refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller “allegations” he had heard about “the day before yesterday.”

Miller will be the GOP candidate on the ballot this fall in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District after he rejected calls to get out of the race before a legal deadline this past week to replace him — forcing Republicans to support him if they want the party to hold onto the seat. Members of President Donald Trump’s political team also urged Ohio Republicans to hold off on a public pressure campaign to get Miller to drop out so as not to risk the party appearing ununified.

Polling now shows Miller trailing his Democratic challenger, Brian Poindexter, which could force the GOP to spend precious resources in a district that would otherwise be safely red — and possibly cost them a seat Trump won by double digits. Poindexter, a city councilmember and union ironworker, was added Tuesday to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “red-to-blue” program, reserved for congressional candidates who are seen as standing a chance of flipping a Republican-held seat.

But Miller’s baggage may not be confined to his race alone. Some Democrats are already using the unreturned campaign donations as fodder to hammer Republicans running in other contests around the country.

“Ryan doesn’t care,” said Benny Stanislawski, communications director for Democrat Bob Brooks, in attacking Brooks’ opponent Mackenzie. “That’s who he is: open for business for whoever’s willing to pay up, no questions asked.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement Tuesday called Democrats “shameless hypocrites who conveniently look the other way when their vulnerable members are bankrolled by scandal-plagued Democrats like [former Rep.] Eric Swalwell.”

The NRCC also claimed that some of the Democrats who said they’d give away Swalwell campaign contributions have, in fact, not returned the money as promised.

“Nobody should take these slimeballs seriously when their supposed principles disappear the second they become politically inconvenient,” Marinella added of Democrats.

Unlike Miller, Swalwell resigned in April and ended his gubernatorial bid in California amid intense pressure from inside his own party over sexual assault allegations he denies.

Viet Shelton, a spokesperson with the DCCC, shot back that it is, in fact, Republicans who “spend all their time virtue signaling about how self righteous they are just to turn around and take dirty money from disgraced, disgusting, and abhorrent men … They should stop with the fake outrage.”

Some House Republicans continue to rally around Miller as the party seeks to hold onto its razor-thin majority: Just last week, Miller and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.)filed a new joint fundraising committee with the FEC.

Lunasaid in a recent text message to POLITICO that she would not get in the middle of a private matter between the Millers. Tuesday night, she said the committee was “not active,” adding: “nothing more to it.”

Samuel Benson, Lisa Kashinsky, Madison Fernandez and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Paramount lawyer says company ‘happy to cooperate’ as Democrats vow crackdown on merger

Published

13 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic lawmakers are readying aggressive oversight of Paramount Skydance’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount’s top lawyer said Tuesday the company is “happy to cooperate.”

“We’re not naive to know that politics does not exist,” Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim said. “We’re not shocked about that. We’ll be happy to cooperate and really engage with Republicans and Democrats about any issue and aspect. This merger is actually going to be good not only for California, it’ll be good for America.”

Paramount has been “transparent” and responsive to lawmaker’s concerns,” Delrahim — who served as Trump’s antitrust chief in his first administration — said at Blue Light News’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit.

The merger of the media companies has become a flashpoint for Democratic outcry, as the party outlines a range of grievances that could resurface as a sweeping oversight effort if they take control of one or both chambers of Congress next year. Top Democrats already insist Paramount CEO David Ellison and his company have been less than forthcoming.

Democrats have blasted Paramount’s $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery as a gross antitrust violation with serious national security implications due in part to the involvement of foreign investment in the deal. And they have slammed Ellison for paying a $16 million settlement to President Donald Trump, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts claimed could be “bribery in plain sight” in exchange for the administration’s approval of the company’s merger with Skydance last year.

Ellison also last week tried to tamp down Democratic concerns he would influence the independence of news network BLN after the deal, after Paramount’s takeover of CBS News last year led to outrage from journalists that leadership was pressing for more favorable coverage of the Trump administration.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is leading 12-states in a lawsuit to block the company’s current merger with Warner Bros., and last week, a federal judge scheduled a March trial to decide whether the acquisition violates antitrust law. Paramount agreed to punt the merger until next year — precisely when Democrats hope to be back in power.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement to Blue Light News that Ellison “has evaded Congressional oversight of his work to create a mega-media empire designed to serve Donald Trump’s political agenda. If he thinks he can run out the clock on Congressional scrutiny of his massive media mergers and blockbuster corporate deals, he’s mistaken.”

Raskin called the investigation a “priority” and said “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their role in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

Presented with Raskin’s statement, Delrahim said, “You can allege all you want. There is no corruption here.”

“We’d be happy to engage with Congressman Raskin and provide him, as we have, information,” Delrahim continued. “It sounds good, and I get it. It’s politics. But we respect his role and his important role in oversight. But just because he said so doesn’t mean that there is any corruption.”