Politics

Nevada Dems, GOP battle over ‘no-tax-on-tips’

Published

9 months ago

November 14, 2025

Democrats are trying to blunt the Republican advantage on the widely popular no-tax-on-tips policy as both parties look to strengthen their appeal to the working class ahead of the midterms.

The most intense of these battles is unfolding in Nevada, where five percent of workers earn tips, about double the national rate. Republicans are looking to flip three of the state’s four congressional districts — which include some regions where the tourism and gambling economy dominates. They have already spent millions on ads targeting Nevada Democrats for voting against the GOP megabill that included the tax deduction for tipped workers, which was pushed by President Donald Trump.

“Everyone knows that that was a massively influential message by the president,” said Robert Uithoven, a GOP strategist who is running the campaign of Lydia Dominguez, one of the Republicans vying for the party’s nomination to take on Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.). Uithoven noted that Trump won Lee’s district — which he said includes a large number of workers employed on the Vegas Strip — and carried the state.

Democrats, meanwhile, have blitzed through Las Vegas, Reno and the state’s other tourist hotspots, proclaiming that Republicans generated no such boon for tipped workers there.

“They’re going to see it, they’re going to feel it. They’re already feeling it,” Lee said in an interview with Blue Light News. “It’s a raw deal for tipped earners, because it’s not permanent, and it’s so much smaller than what the wealthiest Americans got out of that bill.”

The skirmishing comes as both parties look to control the narrative on the affordability of groceries, housing and other staples, along with the state of household incomes — issues expected to have outsized influence on next year’s midterms.

Moreover, Republicans are trying to better market the omnibus legislation they passed this summer, which hasn’t proven as popular as they hoped. They are zeroing in on individual portions of the megabill that are broadly appealing to working-class voters, and deductions for tipped workers could score the party much-needed political gains after a crushing off-year election defeat last week.

“Nevadans know who put more money back in their pockets, and it wasn’t the Democrat frauds who are trying to claim credit,” said Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm. “Out of touch Democrats Steven Horsford, Dina Titus and Susie Lee can’t lie their way out of this one.”

Nevada Democrats bristle at Republicans’ characterization of them as followers — not leaders — on tax breaks for tipped workers. They note that the idea was a seminal part of their 2024 campaigns, and chastised their opponents for failing to back an alternative measure, which they said would have offered tipped workers more meaningful breaks, and the elimination of subminimum wages.

The bill fizzled out in Congress, which — according to Horsford, who drew up the measure — indicates the GOP’s efforts are disingenuous.

“My bill, the TIPS Act, does all the things that the tipped workers asked for because I asked them what they wanted included in the bill as I worked on it. That’s where the Republicans got their bill wrong from the beginning. They listened to one person, Donald Trump, and not the workers,” he said.

Titus, who has introduced legislation on the issue that would also raise the regular minimum wage, said: “Exempting tips from income taxes is only part of the solution to increasing the wages of tipped workers.”

The Democrats’ counteroffensive is part of a larger portrait Democrats have spent months drawing up in hopes of demonstrating that the GOP’s promise of beefier refund checks next filing season will be moot for the working class. They’ve pointed to several statistics: Over a third of tipped workersdo not make enough money to pay federal income taxes. Two in five tipped workersrely on Medicaid and other public assistance that the GOP has slashed or could let expire.

And they note that the tax break will lapse in three years unless Congress extends it, while the cuts to public benefits would be permanent.

“D.C. Republicans are giving temporary crumbs to working families,” said Lindsay Reilly, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s House campaign arm. “Meanwhile, millions of families are at risk of losing their health care, hundreds of hospitals could close, and countless Americans could lose their jobs — all to pay for permanent tax cuts for billionaires.”

Nevada Democrats also say Trump’s coarse diplomatic relations with Canada have eroded the state’s tourism economy, which is heavily dependent on Canadian visitation, and squandered any windfalls the GOP tax deduction on tips could generate.

“When you have less tourism there, there’s less cars to park, there’s less rooms to clean, there’s less tables to serve,” said Lee, who represents Nevada’s third district, which includes southern Las Vegas. “That’s less tipped income.”

There’s perhaps no group more important for the parties to win over on the issue in Nevada than Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which represents the state’s hospitality workers. But in the union’s eyes, both sides are flailing.

In late October, the union sent a letter to Treasury and the IRS rebuking the limitations of the tax cut in the GOP megabill and asking for the same things Democrats have pushed for: a permanent extension of the tip tax deduction that would also cover automatic gratuities and eliminate the subminimum wage. Neither the agencies nor congressional Republicans have indicated they’re willing to offer concessions since then, to the union’s frustration, said Ted Pappageorge, its secretary-treasurer.

But that shouldn’t serve as a reprieve for House Democrats, even if they earned the union’s endorsement last year, he continued.

“There has to be a real fight with the Democratic Party about a message that is very clear that we are going to tackle the cost of living and support working class, kitchen table voters,” Pappageorge said. “We’ve been very clear, we’re going to talk to Republicans, Democrats and independents, and we’re going to run our own members because we don’t see Democrats focusing on working class issues in a way that is going to win in the midterms.”

Samuel Benson contributed to this report.

Politics

A forced-labor crackdown or an end-run around Congress? Dissecting Trump’s new tariffs

Published

3 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration has imposed double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countriesusing a legal justification that permits the president to levy import taxes and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices.

The new tariffs announced in recent days take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expiredand critics say they are less about cracking down on forced labor than they are a way to replace those tariffs. The expired tariffs were themselves a temporary replacement for worldwide tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February.

The tariffs were levied on countries that the U.S. says either don’t have or don’t effectively enforce a forced-labor import ban. The affected countrieswhich account for 99% of U.S. imports, were quick to protest, calling the Trump administration’s claims unfounded and arbitrary, as nations with vastly different records on forced labor received the same tariff level. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates, which are either 10% or 12.5%.

Sidestepping Congress

The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on countries that the U.S. determined had failed “to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

During President Donald Trump ‘s first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

“The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute,” said Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law. “That’s what all of this is about. The president doesn’t want to knock on the front door of Congress, so he’s trying every side door and every unlatched window to get in.”

Little evidence that countries failed to enforce import bans

The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation and held two rounds of public hearings, elicited more than 2,100 public comments, and had “engagement” with its trading partners about what they were doing to combat forced labor bans.

It didn’t detail its talks with the countries, saying those were confidential. Experts say it is fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban or not, but it is difficult to determine the government’s exact rationale for each country’s failure to enforce import bans.

“There’s not a lot of hard evidence there,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “It’s pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren’t doing enough to police forced labor.”

And even if countries do enact and enforce the forced-labor import bans the U.S. wants, they would still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs would be removed, said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

“This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available,” he said.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Countries and industries reject the forced labor argument

Many countries have pushed back against the Trump administration’s findings.

Brazil, which faces a 12.5% forced-labor tariff, called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified.” The U.S. “chose to manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices,” it said in a statement.

Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff.

“We believe that amongst all of the countries in the world, Australia does take the issue of slavery, modern slavery, seriously, and will continue to do that,” Trade Minister Don Farrell told reporters in Adelaide.

Carve-outs have riled some industries. The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), which describes itself as the voice of the American textile industry, protested a mechanism that exempts the Section 301 tariffs for textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia based on those countries’ imports of U.S. cotton and textiles.

“No other industry has been more disadvantaged by forced labor than the U.S. textile industry, which employs 453,000 workers and has lost 41 plants over the past two plus years,” NCTO chief executive Kim Glas said in a statement. “We remain strongly concerned that USTR’s textile mechanism will harm the very domestic manufacturers the administration seeks to help.”

US forced-labor bans don’t always work

The U.S. has two major pieces of legislation related to forced-labor import bans. The Tariff Act of 1930 gave Customs and Border Protection the authority to seize shipments where forced labor was suspected and to block further imports. But it had a big carve-out: If there was “consumptive demand,” meaning there wasn’t sufficient supply to meet domestic demand, imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect in 2016 eliminated that loophole.

In 2021, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed. It blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove the items were made without forced labor.

But goods made with forced labor can still make it into the U.S. In 2015, an Associated Press investigation found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia. The seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S.

An investigation by The Associated Press in 2020 into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among an invisible workforce consisting of millions of men, women and children in Asia. The fruit they harvested made its way into the supply chains of major companies, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Nestle and Procter & Gamble.

Calls for a more comprehensive approach to combat forced labor

During hearings on the tariffs this month, National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, who was representing the business coalition the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group at the hearing, said that in order for the import bans to work, they would have to be much more extensive.

He said there need to be “clear, measurable benchmarks” tied to tariffs for countries to hit, and that the U.S. should help countries build enforcement programs.

Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, said an effective ban needs a “comprehensive approach” that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.

Politics

El-Sayed comes under fire for ‘ogre on a pike’ leaked comment

Published

5 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing backlash from within his own party after using controversial rhetoric to describe the stakes of his victory in a recent donor meeting.

“You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message, and all of a sudden starts to sound a lot different,” El-Sayed said, describing how his win could propel the progressive movement, according to audio of a Zoom meeting obtained by POLITICO.

On Monday, several Democrats were quick to slam his comments, which they took as direct reference to his Senate primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens. El-Sayed had not explicitly mentioned Stevens in the portion of the call Blue Light News reviewed.

“Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to put on a pike is not beating the rap that this race has some serious sexism,” Neera Tanden, a centrist Democrat and president of the Center for American Progress, posted on X. Melissa Byrne, a former staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders, called the remark an “unforced error” that is “really bad and beneath the progressive project.”

El-Sayed’s leaked comments and the reaction to them amount to another flashpoint in a tense primary that is dividing the progressive and moderate wings of the party, and at times has been defined by accusations of racism and sexism.

“Abdul continues with personal insults and making this race about his personal political ambitions and the other 49 states,” said Arik Wolk, spokesperson for the Stevens campaign. “Haley is focused on getting things done for Michigan, and only Michigan.”

Republicans also immediately jumped on the comment, and some leaned into stereotypes of El-Sayed’s religion as a Muslim. “Michigan Islamist discusses beheading his opponents,” said Steve Guest, a former staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz, on X.

An El-Sayed campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the backlash. A spokesperson had previously told Blue Light News that the candidate was “speaking metaphorically” about his intention to support a primary against Sen. John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.

This is not the first time El-Sayed has used — and defended — aggressive political rhetoric. “When they go low, we don’t go high,” the progressive said while speaking at a campaign rally earlier this year, riffing on a famous line from former first lady Michelle Obama. “We take them to the mud and choke them out.”

He and Stevens will face off in their final Democratic Senate debate Monday night, and the results of the Aug. 4 primary could have major consequences for the party as it grapples with its ideological tack ahead of the 2028 presidential election.