Tax Policy Changes

Donald Trump's proposed tax policy changes for his second term include several significant adjustments aimed at extending and modifying existing tax laws. Key elements of his plan involve:
1. Extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA): Trump plans to make the individual provisions of the TCJA permanent, except for the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, which he aims to eliminate.
2. Corporate Tax Rate: He proposes reducing the corporate tax rate for domestic production to 15% by reinstating the domestic production activities deduction.
3. Income Tax Exemptions: Trump suggests exempting tips, Social Security benefits, and overtime pay from income taxes.
4. Tariffs: A significant part of his plan includes imposing a universal 20% tariff on all imports and increasing tariffs on Chinese imports to 60%, which could offset the economic benefits of his tax cuts due to potential foreign retaliation.
5. Green Energy Tax Credits: He plans to repeal green energy tax credits introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act.
These proposals are expected to increase the long-term GDP by 0.8% but also raise the 10-year budget deficit by $3 trillion
TikTok Saved

Donald Trump has expressed opposition to the current U.S. ban on TikTok, which is set to take effect unless its parent company, ByteDance, sells the app by January 19, 2025. Here are the key points regarding Trump's stance and potential actions:
1. Opposition to the Ban: During his campaign, Trump repeatedly stated his opposition to banning TikTok, contrasting with the bipartisan support for the ban due to national security concerns over its Chinese ownership.
2. Potential Actions: Trump could urge Congress to repeal the law mandating the sale or ban of TikTok, or he might direct his attorney general to not enforce the ban. This approach could allow TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. without facing penalties.
3. Previous Stance: This marks a reversal from his previous administration, where Trump attempted to ban TikTok and force its sale to American companies. However, he later approved a deal allowing TikTok to operate in the U.S. with minority shareholding from Oracle and Walmart.
4. Political and Economic Considerations: Trump's stance may be influenced by political and economic factors, including his interactions with major investors in ByteDance and his broader views on U.S.-China relations.
These developments suggest that TikTok's future in the U.S. could be more secure under Trump's administration, depending on how he navigates the legal and political landscape.
Elon Musk Will Head Up New Government Efficiency Department

Donald Trump has announced plans to appoint Elon Musk, alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, to lead a new "Department of Government Efficiency." This department is intended to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucracy, reflecting Trump's focus on cost-cutting and efficiency in government.
If Elon Musk, a non-American-born billionaire, gains significant influence in Trump's White House, it could increase innovation and efficiency, especially in the technology and space sectors. However, it might also spark public concern over potential conflicts of interest and regulatory changes favoring his businesses. Balancing these interests with national priorities would be crucial.
Tariff Tax Hike on Imported Goods

Donald Trump has proposed imposing significant tariffs as part of his economic strategy for his second term. He plans to implement a blanket tariff of up to 20% on imports, with even higher rates of up to 60% or 100% specifically targeting goods from China. These tariffs are intended to protect American industries and reduce trade deficits, although they could lead to higher consumer prices and potentially softer spending.
When a government imposes higher tariffs on foreign goods, it sets off a chain reaction that can ultimately lead to increased domestic consumer prices. This economic mechanism hinges on the nature of tariffs, which are essentially taxes levied on imported goods. While the intent might be to protect domestic industries or retaliate against unfair trade practices, the burden of tariffs tends to fall on local consumers rather than foreign producers.
Here's how it works: when tariffs are imposed, the cost of bringing foreign goods into the country increases. Importers of these goods—manufacturers, retailers, or other businesses—must either absorb these additional costs or pass them on to consumers. Typically, businesses choose the latter to maintain profit margins, leading to higher prices for imported goods on store shelves. Beyond direct price increases on imported goods, tariffs can also have inflationary effects. As the cost of goods rises, consumers may have less disposable income, which can lead to reduced spending in other areas of the economy.
For example, consider the electronics industry, which relies heavily on imported components and finished products. Increasing tariffs on these imports would raise the costs for U.S. manufacturers and retailers. As a result, consumers could see higher prices for everything from smartphones and computers to household appliances.
The automotive industry is another prime example. If tariffs are increased on car parts or vehicles themselves, the overall cost of production rises. Car manufacturers might pass these costs onto consumers, leading to higher prices for new cars, and potentially even impacting the market for used vehicles.
While tariffs are intended to support domestic industry, the immediate consequence is often higher costs for consumers.
Defunding and Dismantling Public Education

The GOP's plan to defund public education involves several key proposals that could significantly impact the U.S. education system. One of the central ideas is to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. This proposal is supported by former President Donald Trump and other GOP candidates, who argue that closing the department would "reduce federal oversight and spending."
The Republican fiscal year 2025 budget plan proposes cutting federal education funding by $11 billion, which includes a 25% reduction in Title I grants for high-poverty schools. The plan also seeks to prohibit the use of federal funds for enforcing Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ students and employees. Some GOP members justify these cuts as a way to eliminate wasteful spending and divisive programs, though critics argue it would dismantle public education support.
Additionally, the GOP platform includes cutting federal funding for schools that teach what they consider "woke" content, such as critical race theory and radical gender ideology. The platform also calls for expanding "school choice" (which involves funneling tax-payer dollars into private schools), ending teacher tenure, and promoting "patriotic" education. These proposals reflect a broader Republican strategy to reshape education policy by reducing federal involvement and implementing school prayer, which conflicts with our constitutional right to freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
Overall, these plans could lead to significant changes in how education is funded and managed in the U.S., potentially affecting the quality and accessibility of education for many students, particularly those in high-poverty areas.
Protections for Federal Workers

Donald Trump has proposed significant changes to federal workforce protections, primarily through the revival of "Schedule F." This policy, initially introduced at the end of his first term, aims to reclassify certain federal employees in policy-related roles, stripping them of civil service protections and making them at-will employees. Here are the key aspects of this proposal:
1. Schedule F: This executive order would allow agencies to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers, removing their employment protections and making it easier to fire them. This move is intended to increase political loyalty within the federal workforce.
2. Impact on Federal Workforce: The policy could affect up to 50,000 employees, potentially expanding to hundreds of thousands. It would significantly alter the structure of the federal workforce by increasing the number of political appointees needed.
3. Resistance and Challenges: The Biden administration has implemented measures to strengthen job protections for federal employees, which could delay but not entirely prevent the implementation of Schedule F. Legal challenges are expected if the policy is reintroduced.
4. Broader Government Restructuring: Trump has also expressed intentions to move a large number of federal jobs out of Washington, D.C., and has discussed eliminating certain government departments, such as the Department of Education.
These proposed changes reflect a broader strategy to reshape the federal government, emphasizing political alignment and reducing the influence of career civil servants.
Foreign Policy Changes

Donald Trump's foreign policy plans for his second term include several significant and potentially disruptive changes. He has expressed a desire to reduce U.S. involvement in global conflicts and alliances, focusing on what he perceives as unfair burdens on the U.S. Here are some key points:
1. NATO: Trump has not explicitly stated he will pull out of NATO, but he has suggested a "radical reorientation" of the alliance. This would involve European countries taking on more responsibility for their defense, with the U.S. stepping back from being Europe's primary provider of combat power. Trump has criticized NATO allies for not meeting defense spending targets and has hinted at a two-tier system where countries not meeting these targets might not receive full U.S. defense support.
2. Ukraine and Russia: Trump is considering negotiating a deal with Russia that could involve Ukraine making territorial concessions. He has criticized NATO's expansion and suggested that Ukraine's potential membership was a mistake, which he believes contributed to the conflict. Trump has indicated he would seek a quick resolution to the Ukraine conflict, potentially involving significant compromises.
3. General Foreign Policy Approach: Trump has shown a preference for strongman leaders and has been critical of long-standing U.S. allies he perceives as taking advantage of American support. His approach is expected to be more isolationist, focusing on reducing U.S. involvement in international conflicts and alliances.
These plans suggest a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, with potential implications for global stability and the existing international order.
Union Busting

In his second term, Donald Trump is expected to take a stance that could be challenging for labor unions. His administration plans to roll back some of the pro-labor regulations and policies that were implemented under President Biden. This includes reducing federal government efforts on civil rights and potentially expanding presidential powers, which could impact union activities and worker protections.
His stance on unions was highlighted by a recent conversation with Elon Musk, where they discussed their history of firing striking workers. During a two-hour conversation on the social media platform X, Trump praised Musk for his approach to handling striking workers, suggesting that Musk's method of firing them was commendable.
Trump said, "You walk in, you say, 'You want to quit?' They go on strike, and you say, 'That's okay, you're all gone.'" This conversation led to the United Auto Workers (UAW) filing unfair labor practice charges against Trump and Musk, as firing workers for striking is illegal under federal labor law.
The UAW's action underscores concerns about Trump's anti-union stance, as he has been known to support policies and rhetoric that undermine union efforts. This incident is part of a broader pattern where Trump's administration and campaign have been perceived as favoring corporate interests over those of organized labor.
Mass Deportations

Donald Trump's immigration plan for 2025 includes a large-scale deportation operation, which he has described as the "largest deportation operation in American history." This plan aims to deport millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, with a focus on those who have committed crimes but potentially extending to all undocumented individuals.
The plan involves using federal resources, including the National Guard, to assist in deportation efforts, which would be a significant shift in the role of military forces in domestic law enforcement. Trump's team has suggested constructing large detention facilities to hold deportees temporarily, and they have discussed using legal mechanisms like the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations.
The financial and logistical challenges of such a plan are substantial. Estimates suggest that deporting one million people annually could cost between $88 billion and $315 billion per year, requiring a massive increase in ICE personnel and detention capacity. The economic impact could also be significant, potentially reducing the U.S. GDP by 4.2% to 6.8% due to labor shortages and decreased tax revenue from undocumented workers.
Overall, Trump's immigration strategy reflects a hardline approach that could have widespread social and economic consequences, affecting not only undocumented immigrants but also the broader U.S. economy and communities.
Dismantling the Affordable Care Act

If the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is dismantled or significantly altered under Trump's proposed healthcare policies, it could have profound consequences for individuals, particularly those with preexisting conditions and the unemployed.
The introduction of short-term health plans, which do not cover all the essential health benefits required under the ACA, could further exacerbate these issues. While these plans might offer lower premiums, they often provide limited coverage, excluding key services like prescription drugs, mental health care, and maternity care. People who rely on comprehensive insurance for ongoing medical needs may find themselves with inadequate coverage, leading to higher out-of-pocket costs and unmet healthcare needs.
These potential changes could result in increased healthcare costs for individuals, greater financial strain on families, and reduced access to necessary medical services. Beyond the personal impact, there are broader implications for public health and economic stability. A rise in the uninsured population could lead to higher uncompensated care costs for hospitals and a sicker workforce, ultimately affecting economic productivity and growth.
Trans Healthcare

Donald Trump recently announced plans to significantly restrict transgender healthcare. He has vowed to stop gender-affirming care; his proposals include:
1. Federal Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors: Trump plans to push for a federal law banning gender-affirming care for minors and penalize doctors who provide such care by cutting them off from Medicare and Medicaid.
2. Educational Policies: He intends to impose severe consequences on educators who suggest to children that they might be transgender, including potential civil rights penalties and loss of federal funding for schools.
3. Title IX Rollback: Trump promised to reverse the Biden administration's expansion of Title IX, which prohibited discrimination against transgender students, on his first day in office.
These measures reflect a significant shift from his earlier, more moderate stance on LGBTQ+ issues.
Environmental Deregulations

The environmental deregulations under the Trump administration's first term saw significant impacts across various sectors in the United States. These deregulations primarily aimed to boost fossil fuel production and reduce regulatory burdens on industries, but they also raised concerns about environmental and public health consequences.
1. Climate Change and Air Quality: The Trump administration rolled back numerous climate-related regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, which was replaced with the less stringent Affordable Clean Energy Rule. This change is projected to result in only a 1% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, compared to no policy at all. Additionally, fuel economy standards for vehicles were relaxed, reducing the required annual improvements from 5% to 1.5%.
2. Fossil Fuel Production: Deregulations facilitated increased fossil fuel exploration and extraction, including lifting bans on oil and gas exploration in sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and coastal waters. These actions were intended to support the fossil fuel industry but have been criticized for potentially increasing environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Public Health and Safety: The administration weakened regulations on pollutants such as mercury and other toxic substances from power plants, as well as the disposal of coal ash, which contains harmful toxins. These changes could pose risks to public health, particularly in communities near industrial sites.
4. Legal and Regulatory Challenges: Many of these deregulatory actions faced legal challenges, with courts often ruling against the administration for not following proper procedures or for failing to meet statutory obligations under laws like the Clean Air Act. The administration's track record in court was poor, with a high percentage of its regulatory changes being overturned.
Gutting Social Security and Medicare

Donald Trump's plans regarding Social Security and Medicare have raised concerns about potential cuts and the acceleration of insolvency for these programs. Although Trump has publicly vowed not to cut these entitlement programs, his policy proposals could inadvertently lead to financial challenges for them.
Trump has proposed eliminating the tax on Social Security benefits, which many seniors currently pay into. While this might seem beneficial, it could significantly reduce the revenue that Social Security relies on, potentially hastening its insolvency. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) projects that Trump's agenda could increase Social Security's ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion, making the program insolvent by 2031, three years earlier than currently projected.
Trump's plans to end taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs, and expand deportations could further widen Social Security's cash deficits. These measures would reduce payroll tax collections and potentially increase costs through higher inflation, further straining the program's finances.
The TLDR: While Trump has stated he would protect Social Security and Medicare, the financial implications of his proposed tax cuts and other policies suggest that these programs could face significant funding challenges, potentially leading to benefit cuts in the future.
National Abortion Ban

Donald Trump's position on a national abortion ban has been a topic of significant discussion and, at times, contradiction. Recently, Trump stated that he would veto a federal abortion ban if elected again, emphasizing that the decision should be left to the states based on the will of their voters. He reiterated his support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, aligning himself with the stance of former President Ronald Reagan.
Despite these statements, Trump's past actions and judicial appointments have significantly influenced the national conversation on abortion. His appointment of Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, and his proud boasting about it since, has led to increased state-level restrictions, making abortion a central issue in the 2024 race.
While Trump casts himself as a "protector" of women, claiming that they won't be "thinking about abortion" if he's elected, his mixed messages and the impact of his judicial appointments continue to fuel debate and concern among voters. Plus, powerful people who do want to ban abortion nationally will be in his cabinet—specifically RFK Jr., who will be in charge of healthcare reform and who has said he would ban abortion on a national level. But more on that in a minute.
RFK Jr. Will Be in Charge of Our Healthcare

Trump has promised to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to oversee healthcare, and it could have significant consequences for the U.S. healthcare system. Kennedy is a well-known vaccine skeptic, and his influence might lead to increased vaccine hesitancy, resulting in lower vaccination rates and a potential resurgence of preventable diseases like measles and polio. This could also foster greater distrust in federal health agencies such as the FDA and CDC, undermining public health efforts.
Kennedy has criticized the FDA and NIH for being too aligned with pharmaceutical interests, and his proposed changes might affect drug approval processes and research funding, potentially delaying new treatments. While some of his ideas, like capping drug prices, have bipartisan support, his broader agenda could lead to significant policy shifts that might not align with established scientific standards.
Overall, his appointment could lead to increased public health risks, regulatory uncertainty, and shifts in healthcare policy that might not align with scientific consensus, with far-reaching implications for public health and the healthcare system in the U.S.
He Will Be a "Dictator On Day One"

Donald Trump recently made a controversial statement about being a "dictator on day one" if re-elected, which has sparked significant debate and concern. During a town hall event in Iowa with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump was asked if he would abuse power for retribution against his political opponents. He responded, "Except for day one," explaining that on that day, he would focus on closing the southern border and expanding oil drilling.
Trump's comment was seen by some as a rhetorical flourish intended to provoke the media and his political opponents, while others view it as a serious indication of his intentions to wield executive power aggressively. His campaign aides have suggested that the remark was meant to highlight issues like border security and energy independence, which are key points in his platform.
The statement has been criticized by Democrats and people who argue that it reflects Trump's authoritarian tendencies and poses a threat to democratic norms. Trump's rhetoric has often included promises of retribution against his perceived enemies, and his plans for a second term reportedly involve significant expansions of executive power, including targeting political rivals and reshaping federal agencies.
Using the Troops Against "The Enemy From Within"

Donald Trump has suggested using the military to address what he describes as "the enemy from within," focusing on domestic political opponents rather than foreign threats. This rhetoric has sparked obvious controversy and concern. Trump has indicated that he might deploy the National Guard or military forces to handle perceived threats from "radical left lunatics" during events like Election Day.
His comments have been interpreted as a potential shift in the military's role, using it as a tool for domestic policy enforcement, which could include actions against political adversaries and civil unrest. This approach has drawn criticism from various quarters, including concerns about authoritarianism and the misuse of military power against U.S. citizens.
Trump's plans also involve recalling troops from overseas to focus on domestic issues, such as border security and immigration enforcement, which he frames as a national security priority. This strategy has raised alarms about the implications for civil liberties and the traditional boundaries of military involvement in domestic affairs.
Project 2025 Will Become the Law of the Land

Project 2025 is built on four pillars: a detailed policy guide, a personnel database, training for potential administration members, and a playbook for the first 180 days in office. The nearly 900-page policy book, "Mandate for Leadership 2025," proposes significant changes across federal agencies, including dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and imposing stricter immigration controls.
The agenda also targets social issues, advocating for the reversal of the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone and promoting a biblically based definition of marriage and family—which directly defies the Constitution (we have this little thing called "separation of church and state). With a conservative-majority Supreme Court, these proposals could face fewer legal hurdles, allowing for rapid implementation
Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Project 2025, its alignment with his past policies and campaign promises suggests a strong influence on his administration's direction. The potential for Republicans to enact this agenda without significant opposition underscores the profound impact of unified government control, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic checks and balances.
Conservative-Majority Supreme Court

With Donald Trump scoring another term, the prospect of him appointing at least two new justices to the Supreme Court looms large. Such appointments would cement a conservative majority, further influencing the direction of American jurisprudence for decades.
Historically, Trump's first term saw him appoint three conservative justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—who played pivotal roles in reshaping the court's approach to numerous legal issues, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade. This shift has already had profound effects on abortion rights, pushing the debate back to the states and leading to stricter regulations across the country.
A conservative-majority Supreme Court under Trump's potential influence could have sweeping implications. Key issues such as healthcare, with challenges to the Affordable Care Act, could see significant changes, potentially affecting millions of Americans' access to medical services. Civil rights, particularly those concerning LGBTQ+ individuals, voting rights, and affirmative action, might face new interpretations that could roll back protections established under previous court configurations.
Furthermore, with Trump likely to prioritize justices who align closely with his ideology, the balance of the court could tip even more sharply toward conservatism. This would not only affect immediate legal battles but also set the stage for long-term shifts in American law and society, embedding a judicial philosophy that favors conservative principles, ignoring the will of the American people with an unchecked reign.
The potential for Trump to shape the Supreme Court further emphasizes the weight of presidential elections and their enduring impact on the nation's highest legal body. As the court continues to decide on pivotal issues that touch every aspect of American life (including gay marriage and no-fault divorce, which we'll get to), the implications of these appointments will be felt for generations.
Retribution On His Enemies

As Donald Trump eyes a return to the presidency, his rhetoric around retribution against political opponents has become a focal point. Trump has not shied away from making bold threats, often using his platform to promise retaliation against those he perceives as adversaries.
In a Fox News interview, Trump labeled Democrats as the "enemy from within," suggesting that they might cause chaos on Election Day, potentially requiring intervention by the National Guard. This kind of language underscores his willingness to frame political opposition as a threat to national security, and it displays his hypocrisy on these issues as he whines about political opponents conducting a "witch hunt" and referring to himself as the "most persecuted" person of all time.
So according to Trump logic, it's not ok for his enemies to vilify him—but it's ok for him to dehumanize his opponents and their supporters.
A study by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) analyzed over 13,000 of Trump's posts on Truth Social, revealing a relentless focus on punishing perceived enemies. Trump has threatened to use federal power to target President Joe Biden, judges, and other political figures, promising investigations, indictments, and even jail time. In one post, he ominously declared, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"
These statements highlight a potential presidency marked by personal vendettas, where the machinery of government could be wielded as a tool for settling scores. As Trump continues to vocalize these threats, the implications for democratic norms and the rule of law remain a pressing concern. Not to mention, anything Americans actually want or need will play second fiddle to settling his scores.
Marriage Equality: Repealed

Justice Clarence Thomas has been vocal about his desire to revisit and potentially overturn landmark rulings that legalized gay marriage, among other rights. In a concurring opinion following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Thomas explicitly called for the court to reconsider past decisions based on the doctrine of substantive due process, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage. Thomas argued that these decisions were "erroneous" and that the court has a "duty to 'correct the error'" established in these precedents.
Thomas's stance has sparked significant concern among LGBTQ+ advocates and civil rights groups, who view his comments as a direct threat to marriage equality and other privacy rights. The potential for Trump to appoint additional conservative justices only heightens these fears, as it could solidify a court more inclined to revisit and possibly overturn these critical rulings.
The implications of such a shift are profound, potentially rolling back decades of progress in civil rights and altering the legal landscape for millions of Americans. As the nation watches the unfolding political dynamics, the future of marriage equality remains a pivotal issue, underscoring the enduring impact of Supreme Court decisions on American society.
Interracial Marriage: Repealed?

Although Clarence Thomas didn't mention interracial marriage specifically during his concurring opinion (go figure, he's married to a white woman), the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has sparked intense debate about privacy rights in the United States, casting a shadow over other landmark rulings grounded in the same legal doctrine. At the heart of this issue is the concept of substantive due process, a constitutional principle that has been pivotal in safeguarding certain unenumerated rights, including those related to personal privacy and autonomy.
Substantive due process, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, enables courts to protect rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution by interpreting them as integral to liberty and justice. This doctrine has been crucial in landmark decisions that expanded individual freedoms, such as Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to use contraception, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage. The reversal of Roe v. Wade, a decision that had enshrined abortion rights for nearly half a century, signals a potential retreat from the substantive due process framework. Without the protections afforded by this doctrine, numerous privacy rights could be jeopardized. The implications extend beyond abortion; they threaten the very fabric of personal autonomy, dictating how individuals make intimate decisions about their bodies and relationships.
Overturning these precedents could lead to a cascade of restrictions, as states gain more power to regulate personal matters traditionally protected under the veil of privacy. The erosion of these rights raises profound concerns about the future of civil liberties in the U.S., as it could set a precedent for revisiting other established rights related to marriage, contraception, and family planning. Ultimately, the reversal not only affects individual liberties but also challenges the broader principles of democracy, equality, and justice, underscoring the intricate balance between state power and personal freedom in American jurisprudence.
As the nation grapples with these changes, the discourse on privacy rights remains a critical battleground for the preservation of constitutional protections.
