Trump supports higher taxes for the rich, but says GOP ‘should probably not do it’ in bill
Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump offered some mixed messaging as Republicans put the final touches on their tax proposal, saying Friday that he would support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help pay for his sweeping legislative agenda while adding in the same breath his belief that Republicans “should probably not do it.”
“The problem with even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, ‘Read my lips,’ the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Trump’s position on raising taxes for the rich “very honorable” during Friday’s White House press briefing.
“The president himself has said he wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more to help the poor and the middle class and the working class in this country,” Leavitt said. “These negotiations are ongoing on Capitol Hill and the president will weigh in when he feels necessary.”
The ambiguous presidential declaration has thrown negotiators into a frantic scramble — with the House Ways and Means committee expected to mark up their legislation next week.
The inclusion of a tax hike in the “big, beautiful bill” would be a major reversal for House GOP leaders, who have argued that allowing the current tax rates to expire would amount to a tax increase.
“I’m not in favor of raising the tax rates because that’s — our party is the group that stands against that, traditionally,” Speaker Mike Johnson said in an interview on Fox News in late April.
During his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1992, incumbent President George H.W. Bush uttered the infamous line, “read my lips: no new taxes.” Voters ultimately rejected Bush at the ballot box after he broke his vow and signed legislation crafted by congressional Democrats that increased tax revenues to address the growing budget deficit.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a long-promised, sweeping set of baseline tariffs on all countries and what he described as “kind reciprocal” tariffs on nations he claimed were the worst offenders in trade relations with the U.S.
“My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day,” Trump said from the White House Rose Garden, claiming the action will free the U.S. from dependence on foreign goods.
“April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed and the day that we began to make America wealthy again,” he said.
The new measures — which Trump described as “historic” — include a minimum baseline tariff of 10% and further, more targeted levies on certain countries like China, the European Union and Taiwan.
“We will charge them approximately half of what they are and have been charging us,” he said, adding, “because we are being very kind.”
“This is not full reciprocal. This is kind reciprocal,” he said.
Trump held up a chart with a list of nations and what the new U.S. tariffs against them will be. At the top was China, which Trump said was set to be hit with a 34% tariff rate as he claimed it charged the United States 67%.
The 10% baseline tariff rate goes into effect on April 5, according to senior White House officials. The “kind reciprocal” tariffs go into effect April 9 at 12:01 a.m., officials said, and will impact roughly 60 countries.
Trump described trade deficits as a “national emergency” and that his actions will usher in what he called “the golden age of America.”
“In short, chronic trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem. They’re a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life. It’s a very great threat to our country,” he said.
Wednesday’s tariff announcement is a moment months in the making for the president, but one that comes with significant political and economic risk.
Some experts warn his moves could cause the economy to slide into a recession and markets seesawed ahead of Wednesday’s announcement, after weeks of turmoil as Trump’s tariff policy shifted and took shape.
The White House had been mum on details ahead of Wednesday’s event. One senior administration official said the situation was “still very fluid” after meetings on Wednesday morning and that Trump and his top advisers were trying to find some common ground where they agreed.
Some options debated in recent weeks, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang reported, were a 20% flat tariff rate on all imports; different tariff levels for each country based on their levies on U.S. products; or tariffs on about 15% of countries with the largest trade imbalances with the U.S.
Wednesday’s tariffs build onto levies already imposed by the administration, including on steel and aluminum as well as certain goods from China, Canada and Mexico.
The actions have strained relations with Canada and Mexico, two key allies and neighbors. Prime Minister Mark Carney said last week the U.S. and Canada’s deep relationship on economic, security and military issues was effectively over.
Canada has vowed retaliatory tariffs and Mexico said it will give its response later this week. The European Union, too, said it has a “strong plan to retaliate.”
But Trump and administration officials are plowing full steam ahead, arguing America’s been unfairly “ripped off” by other nations for years and it’s time for reciprocity.
“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said on Wednesday.
The economy was the top issue for voters in the 2024 presidential election, with Americans casting blame on President Joe Biden for high prices and Trump promising to bring families financial relief.
The administration has painted tariffs as a panacea for the economy writ large, arguing any pain experienced in the short term will be offset by what they predict will be major boosts in manufacturing, job growth and government revenue.
“Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country, and you see it happening already. We will supercharge our domestic industrial base,” Trump said. “We will pry open foreign markets and break down foreign trade barriers. And ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers.”
But economists say it will be American consumers who bear the brunt of higher costs to start.
It’s unclear how much leeway the public is willing to give Trump to get past what he in the past called “a little disturbance.”
Already, little more than two months into his second term, polls show his handling of the economy is being met with pushback.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey published on Monday found a majority of Americans (58%) disapprove of how Trump has been handling the economy.
On his protectionist trade negotiations with other nations, specifically, 60% of Americans said they disapproved of his approach so far. It was his weakest issue in the poll among Republicans.
Trump’s GOP allies on Capitol Hill have said they’re placing trust in the president, but acknowledged there will be some uncertainty to start.
“It may be rocky in the beginning but I think this will make sense for Americans and it will help all Americans,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at his weekly press conference on Tuesday alongside other members of Republican leadership.
Democrats, meanwhile, pledged to fight the tariffs “tooth and nail” and were trying to force a vote aimed at curtailing his authorities to impose levies on Canada.
“Trump’s done a lot of bad things. This is way up there,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier on Wednesday.
ABC News’ Mary Bruce, Katherine Faulders and Fritz Farrow contributed to this report.
(MADISON, WI) — Voters head to the polls on Tuesday in Wisconsin for a hot-button race that could offer a barometer on how Americans are feeling at this point in President Donald Trump’s second term.
Republican-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel and Democratic-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford are the candidates in Tuesday’s marquee state Supreme Court race, which is technically nonpartisan — but it has become the center of a political firestorm, as well as the target of millions spent by groups linked to tech billionaire and key Trump adviser Elon Musk.
The election will determine which of the candidates, vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, will help determine the ideological bent of the court, which currently leans liberal.
“This is playing out like a presidential-style election. You turn on your TV, any local broadcast station here across the state of Wisconsin, you are inundated with political-type ads for what is technically a nonpartisan judicial race, but this is a full-on political race … this is becoming a true litmus test for the first 100 days of the Trump administration,” Matt Smith, political director at Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate WISN-TV, told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo last week.
The winner of this race will join the bench as the court potentially grapples with key voter issues such as abortion access and redistricting. For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.
The race could also preview how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into Trump’s second term — especially as Musk and his work with the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency becomes a key issue given his groups’ investments in the race.
Musk has indicated he is interested in the race because of the possibility that the court takes on redistricting cases — which could impact the balance of power in the U.S. House if rulings cause congressional maps to be redrawn.
“That is why it is so significant, and whichever party controls the House, to a significant degree, controls the country which then steers the course of Western civilization,” Musk said at a high-profile town hall on Sunday in Green Bay.
Musk has implied “the future of civilization” is at stake with the race. On Sunday, the tech billionaire also controversially gave away two $1 million checks to attendees at a rally in his latest effort to support Schimel.
Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general and a circuit court judge in Waukesha County. He has received almost $20 million in support (such as spending for TV ads) as of Monday from groups linked to Musk, per a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Schimel has also received endorsements from Trump, Musk, Donald Trump, Jr., and other key conservative figures.
Schimel has welcomed the conservative support, yet said at a rally last week that he would treat any case fairly, including if it was a case brought by Trump.
However, Crawford and her allies have alleged he would not treat cases involving Trump or Musk fairly, and she has made Musk a main target of her campaign.
Schimel, asked on Thursday by ABC affiliate WISN to share his closing argument ahead of the final days in the race, said, “My closing argument is that people need to take this race seriously. So much is at stake. We have to restore objectivity to this court right now … We have to put the court back in its proper role where it’s not making the law. It’s not going through a political agenda. It is applying the law the way the legislature writes it, to the facts of the case.”
Crawford, backed by Democrats, is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. At points, she represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.
Major liberal donors such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Democratic donor George Soros have given money to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford. The national Democratic Party has also invested in the race.
Crawford told WISN that her closing argument was about an impartial court: “It’s about making sure that we have a Supreme Court that is fair and impartial in interpreting our laws to protect the rights of Wisconsinites. The other choice is an extreme partisan, someone who is selling out to special interests, has a long history of doing that, and has now tied himself to Elon Musk.”
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of Monday, more than $90 million has been spent in the race — making it the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history. That amount includes more than $49 million spent by Schimel or groups supporting him, and more than $40 million spent by Crawford or groups supporting her.
The nonprofit says that the previous record for spending in a state supreme court race was in Wisconsin’s 2023 state supreme court election, when $56 million was spent.
Voters have taken notice. One Wisconsinite who voted early told WISN, “There’s a lot of outside money coming in, in our state. And I wanted to make sure that my voice is being represented and not other people.”
As of Monday, around 644,000 people in Wisconsin have voted early in person or by mail, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Voters in Wisconsin will also vote on a ballot initiative over whether to enshrine requiring a photo ID to vote into the state constitution. Voter ID is already required by state law; enshrining it into the state constitution would not establish new requirements, but would likely make it harder to ever undo the law.
Democratic groups and voting rights organizations have criticized the ballot initiative as potentially disenfranchising voters. Supporters of the initiative argue it will strengthen election security in Wisconsin and is cementing a requirement that has already been in place.
A Marquette University Law School poll taken in late February also found that a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin support photo ID for voting, and separately, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin said they would support the ballot initiative.
ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Ben Siegel, Will Steakin, Averi Harper, Hannah Demissie and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge blasted the Trump administration’s termination of immigration records for thousands of foreign students in the United States as “arbitrary and capricious,” demanding that the government provide detailed explanations as to why and how the records were terminated and what this means for students.
“I think we all agree it was arbitrary and capricious,” Judge Ana Reyes said about the Trump administration’s move to terminate records of foreign students in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database that schools and government agencies used to confirm if foreign students are abiding by the conditions of their stay, during a court hearing for an international student’s case in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.
“This was not ideal by any stretch of the imagination,” she continued.
Akshar Patel, a computer science student from India, sued the Trump administration after his SEVIS record was recently terminated based on a speeding ticket from a few years ago. On the heels of the Trump administration’s recent announcement that it is reinstating SEVIS records for some international students whose records had been terminated, Patel sought a preliminary injunction to ensure he can maintain his status and won’t be detained or deported.
“It still boggles my mind that we’re firing tens of thousands of federal workers on no notice and then take 10 to 20 of them to run a bunch of names through a database to see if there are students — if they have a speeding record,” Reyes said.
Reyes, who is overseeing Patel’s case, did not rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction from the bench on Tuesday after hearing from the government that Patel’s legal status as a student has not been terminated and that he’s not facing any immediate threat of deportation. The judge suggested that the plaintiff and the government could come up with language to ensure Patel’s status in the United States.
During the court hearing, Andre Watson, a senior official at the National Security Division of Homeland Security Investigations, explained that Patel was terminated due to a speeding ticket from a few years ago, was one of roughly 6,400 international students who were referred to the State Department after his team checked the records of nearly 1.3 million international students through the National Crime Information Center as part of its Criminal Alien Program initiative, which is aimed at identifying and removing migrants lacking legal status to be in the U.S. who also have criminal records.
The thousands of international students who were referred to the State Department, and subsequently returned to the Department of Homeland Security, including Patel, came up on the NCIC database but did not necessarily have criminal records. Watson did not elaborate on how exactly the government combed through the names to decide whom it flagged.
The judge was highly critical of the administration’s process of terminating these students’ immigration records and visas, taking particular notice of the sweeping nature of the mass terminations.
“After careful consideration for 15 minutes, terminate everybody, right?” the judge questioned as she walked through the government’s process of filtering through students’ records and determining whose records to terminate. “Can you and I agree that nowhere in this entire process has anyone done an individualized determination of any of these individuals before their names were terminated in SEVIS?”
“I mean, no one looked at Mr. Patel’s case and said that, yeah, here’s somebody who should no longer be in the United States, right?” Reyes continued.
Noting that Patel had only received a citation in Texas for reckless driving but was never charged, Reyes said, “You and I both agree that if we deported every single individual in this country who’s been tasked for speeding, there’d be very few people left, and almost all of them would not have driver’s license.”
“You and I both know that Mr. Patel is not a criminal, right?” she said, adding that Patel had even disclosed the speeding ticket in his visa petition. “The United States government had already assessed this speeding ticket and had found it not to be a reason to kick him out of status.”
U.S. attorney Johnny Walker maintained that the SEVIS termination was merely a “red flag” to the school notifying it of the student’s record, saying it is up to the school to terminate his student status.
While Patel, who is scheduled to graduate in a few weeks, has continued to attend classes to finish his degree, lawyers representing other affected international students have said some schools saw it as more than a red flag — thinking this meant their students needed to leave the country.
While declining to rule from the bench after assurances from the government that Patel’s student status is active, the judge criticized the administration’s actions, describing it as an “utter lack of concern for human individuals.”
“Aside from the utter lack of concern for human individuals who we have invited into our country and who have made our communities richer by being students who have contributed to our colleges and who have paid our colleges — the reason I’m concerned and particularly troubled is because those plaintiffs lawyers, like all lawyers, have to get paid, and so now we’ve got thousands of people who are having to pay plaintiff’s attorneys to have litigation, to file briefs, to appear in court, prepare for court, to get the information, and that’s not cheap, right?” Reyes said.
“And all of this could have been avoided if individuals had taken a beat and instead of just rushing things,” she continued.
