Politics
Trump’s Big Bill Would Be More Regressive Than Any Major Law in Decades
The Republican megabill now before the Senate cuts taxes for high earners and reduces benefits for the poor. If it’s enacted, that combination would make it more regressive than any major tax or entitlement law in decades.
Estimated annual average change in resources between 2026-34
How the Bill Would Affect Households at Different Income Ranks
The bill as passed by the House in May would raise after-tax incomes for the highest-earning 10 percent of American households on average by 2.3 percent a year over the next decade, while lowering incomes for the poorest tenth by 3.9 percent, according to new estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.
The shape of that distribution is rare: Tax cut packages have seldom left the poor significantly worse off. And bills that cut the safety net usually haven’t also included benefits for the rich. By inverting those precedents, congressional Republicans have created a bill unlike anything Washington has produced since deficit fears began to loom large in the 1990s.
“I’ve never seen anything that simultaneously really goes after poor people and then really helps rich people,” said Chuck Marr, the vice president for federal tax policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
To the extent that some prior bills have also been regressive, they still haven’t looked quite like this.
Comparing Major Tax and Entitlement Bills
The G.O.P. plan is among the bills projected to benefit the highest-income group while hurting the lowest.
2025
Current G.O.P. bill
Lose
Gain
2017 Obamacare repeal*
Lose
Gain
1997
Tax and budget acts Unclear
Gain
1996
Welfare act
Lose No change
2022
Inflation Reduction Act
Gain Lose
2021
Build Back Better*
Gain
Lose 2010
Affordable Care Act
Gain
Lose
1993 Clinton budget act
Gain
Lose
1990
H.W. Bush tax act Gain
Lose
2017
First Trump tax cuts Gain
Gain most
2013
Obama tax cuts
Gain Gain most
2001/03
W. Bush tax cuts
Gain
Gain most
The calculations the C.B.O. published are what’s known as a distributional analysis. This type of study estimates how legislation will affect people across the income distribution, taking into account the taxes they pay and the government benefits they receive. Lawmakers often think about legislation in terms of its overall effects: Does it raise or lower the deficit? Does it grow or stifle the economy? But this kind of analysis helps illustrate who benefits and who is hurt by a bill.
“Ultimately, people care about who are the winners and who are the losers,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics and law at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied fiscal policy for decades.
Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, dismissed the C.B.O.’s analysis as missing who those winners are in the bigger picture.
“The best way to help workers across the income distribution, including all the folks in the bottom, is to create an environment in which firms want to hire them,” he said, pointing to rising wages and low unemployment after the passage of the major tax cut package during the first Trump administration. He disputed that low-wage workers would now be hurt in this bill by changes to Medicaid and food assistance.
To put the current bill in context, we have assembled similar analyses of major tax and social welfare bills from the last four decades.
The analyses below aren’t all exactly the same. Most were originally published around the time each bill was debated in Congress. They were produced by a few different analysts, because no one group has routinely published distributional tables. They don’t always cover every provision in every bill, which means some charts may be missing a few relevant effects. They evaluated slightly different time windows after enactment. In cases where we lacked complete data, we have not shown a complete chart, but instead characterized a bill’s effects on the highest- and lowest-income households.
Compared with other legislation, this bill is notable because it’s so regressive — while neither reducing the deficit nor supercharging growth, according to analysts across the political spectrum.
“This bill definitely compromises too much on growth, and it doesn’t make smart use of tax cuts either,” said Erica York, vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, a research group that generally favors lower taxes. “If you look at the revenue cost, it’s really large. If you look at the economic impact, it’s not that meaningful.”
Regressive bills
Since 1990, there have been a couple of other major bills that leave the poor worse off, but they differ from the current proposal in key ways.
The current bill cuts health care spending, food assistance and other programs that benefit the poor, in addition to extending tax cuts for individuals that passed in 2017. Those 2017 tax changes, on average, benefited all income groups, but were skewed toward higher earners. New tax policies in the current bill would shift those benefits up the income scale even more. And some new tax provisions that would help lower-income households — like no tax on tips and no tax on overtime — would expire after a few years, while many benefits for high earners would be made lasting.
“That makes this specific episode kind of exceptional,” said Owen Zidar, a Princeton economist. “We just don’t usually have big tax cuts running in different directions from the bottom than at the top.”
Mr. Zidar noted that one tax provision that mostly benefits the rich — an expansion of the tax deduction for certain types of business income — is estimated to cost about as much as the bill’s major reductions in Medicaid spending would save.
Republicans’ attempted repeal of Obamacare (2017, not enacted)
Bottom earners would lose; top earners would gain
The legislation that looks the most like the current bill is the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare in 2017. A bill that passed the House would have reduced spending on Medicaid for the poor and would have redistributed tax credits for health insurance up the income scale. It also would have reduced the federal deficit, whereas the 2025 House-passed bill is projected to add about $3 trillion to it over the next decade, when interest is included. The 2017 repeal bill, which was unpopular with the public, did not become law.
Like the repeal effort, the current bill includes big cuts to Medicaid and changes to Obamacare marketplaces that would disadvantage lower-income workers.
Clinton tax and budget acts (1997)
It’s unclear how bottom earners would be affected. Top earners would gain.
A pair of bipartisan bills enacted together in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act, were designed to balance the federal budget. The legislation aimed to limit growth in Medicare expenses and created the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Child Tax Credit. The tax package also included other tax cuts that helped higher-income families. Hard-to-measure changes to health programs, such as reduced payments to hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, left its full effect on the poor less clear.
Welfare reform act (1996)
Bottom earners would lose; top earners would see no change
The welfare reform reconciliation bill passed in 1996 did appear at the time to reduce after-tax incomes for poor Americans.
“People are likening this to welfare reform,” said Heather Hahn, an associate vice president at the Urban Institute who studies welfare policy. But she added that they’re quite different, for one major reason: “That ’96 bill was not tied to big tax cuts for anybody else.”
Progressive bills
Budget bills with the opposite shape — larger gains at the bottom and tax increases at the top — have tended to come during Democratic presidencies.
Inflation Reduction Act (2022)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would lose
The Biden administration oversaw several such bills. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, expanded clean energy subsidies and health insurance subsidies for the middle class, and paid for the changes partly with reductions on prescription drug prices. Our chart shows the distributional effects in the first year after passage. By the end of the decade, the bill’s effects were projected to become less progressive, since the insurance subsidies are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
Build Back Better (2021, not enacted)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would lose
The Inflation Reduction Act was a scaled-back version of “Build Back Better,” President Biden’s signature domestic policy priority that never became law. It would have expanded social spending, benefiting lower-income Americans, and paid for much of it through higher taxes on corporations and high earners. Many of the proposed benefits for low-income Americans — including for child care, paid family leave and home health care — are not reflected in the chart, suggesting that this group may have gained even more than what’s shown.
Affordable Care Act (2010)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would lose
The 2010 Affordable Care Act passed under President Barack Obama vastly expanded spending on health care for poor and middle-class Americans, and paid for it through higher payroll taxes on high earners, taxes on expensive employer health insurance and cuts to Medicare spending on hospitals and private insurance. While no one published a formal distributional analysis of the bill around the time it passed, several subsequent studies have measured its effects. Ultimately, several of the taxes that were originally projected to help reduce the deficit were repealed, mostly during the first Trump administration.
Clinton budget act (1993)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would lose
A 1993 budget bill under Bill Clinton combined spending cuts with additional tax increases, particularly for the wealthy. It also increased the earned-income tax credit.
George H.W. Bush tax act (1990)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would lose
The bill George H.W. Bush signed into law in 1990 raised taxes across the board, but boosted the earned-income tax credit for low-income workers.
Regressive bills that would benefit all groups
Several presidents have signed major tax cut bills that benefited Americans across the income spectrum while vastly increasing the deficit.
First Trump tax cuts (2017)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would gain most
“On average, that’s been the pattern: that big tax cut bills help everyone,” said Benjamin Page, a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which produced many of the analyses shown here.
The bill before Congress today, which breaks that pattern, extends many provisions of major tax legislation passed during President Trump’s first term, which are set to expire at the end of the year. The benefits of that bill also skewed toward the wealthy, although to a lesser degree than the current bill.
Obama tax cut extension (2013)
Bottom earners would gain; top 20 percent would gain most
In 2013, President Obama extended most of the tax cuts that had passed under George W. Bush and were due to expire. But the bipartisan tax bill he oversaw eliminated a tax cut for top earners.
George W. Bush tax cuts (2001 and 2003)
Bottom earners would gain; top earners would gain most
The original major tax cut bills from the George W. Bush administration delivered an even greater share of benefits to the highest earners than the current bill would. But unlike the Trump bill, the Bush tax cut did not cut benefits to the poor. That made the laws regressive, but no group looked worse off.
The cases of emergency stimulus
One other major category of bills has come during times of acute economic stress, when the government temporarily increases spending, often disproportionately aimed at providing assistance to the poor. This happened during the Great Recession in the late 2000s and the Covid pandemic. Those major stimulus bills had no losing group.
Distributional data is limited in showing the full effects of the 2009 Obama stimulus and the 2021 American Rescue Plan, the largest of several pandemic relief bills. Both increased funding for unemployed workers, expanded spending on health care and made investments in infrastructure.
Those bills made an explicit trade-off that it was worth adding to the deficit during a time of crisis. But no such trade-off exists today: The 2025 bill, in addition to its regressivity, adds to the deficit amid a much healthier economy.
About the data
We collected distributional analyses for major tax and social welfare bills dating to the 1990s (most were also reconciliation bills). For consistency, we included only charts for those analyses that looked at the effects of most provisions of a bill on after-tax income, though income is not always measured in exactly the same way.
Sources for each chart are listed. Most came from the Tax Policy Center.
Some analyses looked only at the change in taxes or in pre-tax income resulting from a bill, and we used that information to characterize its distributional patterns in our tables.
Politics
Iran fires missiles at US bases across Middle East after American strikes on nuclear, IRGC sites
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting U.S. military facilities in multiple Middle Eastern countries Friday, retaliating after coordinated U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian military and nuclear-linked sites.
Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan, according to regional officials and state media accounts. Several of those governments said their air defense systems intercepted incoming projectiles.
It remains unclear whether any U.S. service members were killed or injured, and the extent of potential damage to American facilities has not yet been confirmed. U.S. officials have not publicly released casualty figures or formal damage assessments.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) described the operation as a direct response to what Tehran called “aggression” against Iranian territory earlier in the day. Iranian officials claimed they targeted U.S. military infrastructure and command facilities.
Explosions were reported in or near areas hosting American forces in Bahrain, pictured above. (Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Adelola Tinubu/U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. 5th Fleet )
The United States military earlier carried out strikes against what officials described as high-value Iranian targets, including IRGC facilities, naval assets and underground sites believed to be associated with Iran’s nuclear program. One U.S. official told Fox News that American forces had “suppressed” Iranian air defenses in the initial wave of strikes.
Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in the opening phase of the U.S. operation, according to a U.S. official. The campaign was described as a multi-geographic operation designed to overwhelm Iran’s defensive capabilities and could continue for multiple days. Officials also indicated the U.S. employed one-way attack drones in combat for the first time.
IF KHAMENEI FALLS, WHO TAKES IRAN? STRIKES WILL EXPOSE POWER VACUUM — AND THE IRGC’S GRIP
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran, in Manama, Bahrain, Feb. 28, 2026. (Reuters)
Iran’s retaliatory barrage targeted countries that host American forces, including Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet — as well as Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base and the UAE’s Al Dhafra Air Base. Authorities in those nations reported intercepting many of the incoming missiles. At least one civilian was killed in the UAE by falling debris, according to local authorities.
Iranian officials characterized their response as proportionate and warned of additional action if strikes continue. A senior U.S. official described the Iranian retaliation as “ineffective,” though independent assessments of the overall impact are still developing.
Smoke rises over the city after the Israeli army launched a second wave of airstrikes on Iran in Tehran on Feb. 28, 2026. (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Regional governments condemned the strikes on their territory as violations of sovereignty, raising the risk that additional countries could become directly involved if escalation continues.
The situation remains fluid, with military and diplomatic channels active across the region. Pentagon officials are expected to provide further updates as damage assessments and casualty reviews are completed.
Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.
Politics
Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes
Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.
The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.
Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”
But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.
“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.
Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”
Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.
Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.
Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.
Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.
“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”
We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons
— President Trump
The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.
The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.
After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”
Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.
“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.
Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.
This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.
(Uncredited / Associated Press)
“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.
Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”
There are other signs an attack could be imminent.
On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.
A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.
The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.
Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.
Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.
Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.
“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.
At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.
But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.
After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.
Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.
In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.
“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.
“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”
Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.
“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”
Politics
Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
transcript
transcript
Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.
-
“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”
By Jackeline Luna
February 27, 2026
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT