“As an adjudicated insurrectionist, Trump is an illegitimate president according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and therefore every official act as president will be illegitimate.”
–Mike Zonta, co-editor of OccupySF.net
The 14th Amendment states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Call your Congressperson and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121
American public institutions urgently need repair and renewal. The 2024 election was the first time since the 1800s that the incumbent party lost the White House three times in a row. Public trust in government has plunged to historic lows. Citizens plainly feel left behind, economically unmoored, and dissatisfied with the government that serves them.
Crisis can bring innovation. As Lincoln urged, we must “think anew.” What will matter most is not what we are against but what we are for.
This is the second in a series of policy agendas. The Brennan Center began with proposals to combat corruption and will offer solutions focusing on executive power, as well as voting and representation. We will set out ways to strengthen Congress. We will put forward ideas for constitutional change and more.
Our solutions must match the scale of the challenges. They seek to address the problems of today, not 10 years ago or 1975. The project of reform must engage people from both parties, and no party. The best ideas are neither left nor right: They reflect the urgent desire of the disaffected middle. Throughout history, reform follows scandal and crisis — often, but not always. If we act, from today’s clashes can come a time of renewal and democratic rebirth.
—Michael Waldman President and CEO, Brennan Center Member, Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States (2021)
The U.S. Supreme Court wields vast power with minimal accountability. Its actions shape the law, democratic institutions, and people’s lives. Yet it has no direct means of enforcing its decisions. Its authority depends emphatically on its credibility with the public.
Today, the Supreme Court is facing a crisis of confidence. Americans’ favorable views of the Court hover at historic lows.1 Polling shows that only 22 percent of voters have a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence in the Court.2 It’s clear why. Over the past few years, the Court has been defined by polarizing opinions that have taken away constitutional rights and grossly expanded presidential power, serious ethics scandals, and contentious confirmation battles.3
The Court has always had an unavoidable political dimension — the justices are appointed by presidents with the advice and consent of the Senate. But it has become increasingly out of balance in recent years, often representing the will of one political faction. Beginning with George H. W. Bush, who appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving member of the current Court, Democratic and Republican candidates have won the presidency an equal number of times, yet Republicans have appointed six of the current justices, establishing a supermajority on the Court.4 In fact, the last chief justice appointed by a Democrat took office in 1946. Extreme polarization in Congress has led to toxic, high-stakes, partisan confirmation fights, heightening the politicization of the Court.5
Ethics scandals have further roiled the Court. Reports of justices accepting lavish trips and expensive gifts cumulating in millions of dollars, including from people with business before the Court, as well as engaging in political fundraising activities and controversial displays of partisanship, have led to public outrage yet no meaningful accountability.6
In recent decades, the Court has exercised extraordinary influence in a way that would have been unrecognizable to the framers. Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.7 Throughout the first century of the United States, the Court was largely limited in its role and modest in its ambitions. Then, through a few notable periods — during the Taney Court, which issued the Dred Scott decision; the Progressive Era, when justices blocked decades’ worth of social legislation; and the Warren and Burger Courts of a half century ago, with their sweeping rulings on civil rights and criminal procedure — the Court played an increasingly central role in political life.8 Each of these instances resulted in strong public backlash.
The Roberts Court has thrust the institution into the center of public controversy again. It has dismantled laws that protected against the corrupting influence of money in politics, which has led to the domination of wealth in U.S. elections and policymaking.9 It has gutted landmark pieces of legislation, including core provisions of the Voting Rights Act.10 It has struck down acts of Congress at a rapid pace.11 Recent rulings have led to the nullification of many state and federal laws regulating gun safety and have aggressively curbed the power of regulatory agencies to protect public health and the environment.12 It has eroded individual rights and liberties — including a federal right to an abortion — in a way that is unmoored from public values.13 And most recently, with some notable exceptions, it has enabled an unaccountable executive to run roughshod over the U.S. system of checks and balances, often with no explanation for its rulings.14 These decisions have similarly provoked immense public backlash.
The Court today can appear to operate more like an ideologically committed legislature than a restrained judicial body. As Justice Elena Kagan has observed, “The way the Court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court.” Otherwise, the justices are simply “nine unaccountable people, people who haven’t been elected” who “make the rules for a democracy.”15
We need a strong Supreme Court to play its proper role in our democracy, protecting democratic institutions, upholding the rule of law, and safeguarding individual rights. But this Court no longer operates as the framers envisioned, nor as it should. Reforms can rebuild the public’s trust and restore balance in our system of government. That requires recognizing that the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government, and as such, it can and should be criticized with rigor. That is the American way. The good news is that sensible, popular solutions can make a difference.
Numerous reforms should also be considered for lower federal courts, such as increasing the number of judges to keep pace with our growing population or reforming the processes around nationwide injunctions. But this moment demands immediate reform of the Supreme Court, where significant questions concerning our democracy are playing out and will meaningfully shape our government for decades to come.
Many may view the Court as impossible to reform. But it can be done. Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the federal judicial branch, leaves Congress with enormous control over the Court’s structure and operations. It has changed the makeup and rules of the Court many times before.16 It has modified justices’ duties and the Court’s docket, created recusal standards, and even altered the Court’s size and jurisdiction.
It is time for Congress to act once again and return the Court to its proper place in the U.S. constitutional system. Congress must pass urgently needed reforms, including the following.
Enact 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Today, individual justices have the power to shape the law for generations. That was not always the case. For nearly two centuries, justices served an average of around 15 years.17 In the 1970s, however, tenure began to balloon. The average Supreme Court term since 1993 is 28 years, and this is expected to lengthen.18 Several current justices could hold office across as many as nine presidential terms. No other major democracy in the world provides life tenure for high court judges who hear constitutional cases.19 At the state level, only Rhode Island has life tenure with no age limit.
Nobody should hold that much power for so long. This reflects a core element of democratic accountability, a lesson taught by George Washington when he established the two-term tradition for presidents.
Congress should enact 18-year term limits for active service by Supreme Court justices. After 18 years, justices would assume senior status, during which they would hear cases by designation on the lower courts, step in to hear cases on the Court during a recusal or unexpected vacancy, and assist with the management of federal courts.20 A form of senior status is common practice among lower court judges and has been an option for Supreme Court justices for nearly 90 years.21 As notable legal scholars and retired federal and state judges have confirmed, Congress has the authority to enact this reform by statute, consistent with the Constitution’s requirement that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” as senior status allows justices to continue their tenure with modified duties.22
Term limits should be accompanied by a system of regular appointments. With an appointment every two years, each president would name two justices per presidential term, infusing the institution with fresh perspectives and lowering the stakes of each confirmation process, all while enhancing the democratic link between the Court and the public. It would lessen incentives for justices to time retirements for political advantage or to stay on the Court in anticipation of a president from their preferred party taking office.23 And it would ensure that every president has an equal opportunity to influence the composition of the Court during a single term in office.
Term limits are widely popular. A 2024 Fox News poll found that 78 percent of Americans are in favor of limiting justices to an 18-year term.24
This reform would curb unchecked power. At the same time, it would augment the Court’s independence in the political process — a key way to ensure it will stand up for the Constitution when other branches abuse power. And it would help realign the Court with public values and rebuild public trust.
Hold justices to the highest ethical standards.
Every court in the United States is required to abide by a binding code of conduct — except for the Supreme Court. Justices have largely enjoyed immunity from ethics oversight. In recent years, reports of justices accepting luxury vacations or expensive gifts (often without required disclosure), engaging in political convenings or fundraisers, or failing to recuse themselves despite conflicts of interest have tarnished the Court’s reputation.25
In 2023, after public outcry, the Court adopted a voluntary code of ethics to clear up what it called a “misunderstanding” that it was “unrestricted by any ethics rules.”26 This code is more loophole than law.27 It has no mechanism to file a complaint or launch an investigation in response to allegations of wrongdoing, and findings from investigations can be kept secret. It is enforced only by the justices themselves. And while it requires justices to recuse themselves from a case when there is a conflict of interest, they can ignore that obligation if they think their vote is needed, and they need not explain their reasoning. Neither the code nor federal law imposes meaningful limits on receiving gifts. And the code did not tighten financial disclosure rules, despite justices having flouted existing disclosure requirements.
No individual is wise enough to be the judge in their own case. Congress should require a binding and enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court justices. Such a code should establish a clear mechanism for enforcement and for the investigation of alleged violations, with findings of serious misconduct made public, as happens in the systems that govern lower federal court judges, state judges, and members of Congress.28 Justices should also be required, without exception, to issue a brief written explanation when they deny a request for recusal. And Congress should bar the acceptance of gifts (with commonsense exceptions, such as gifts from family members) and ban justices from engaging in stock trading or owning individual stocks. Binding ethics safeguards would not only ensure that justices are held accountable but also help prevent conflicts of interest.
Curb abuses of the shadow docket.
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket, dubbed the “shadow docket,” allows the Court to quickly halt lower court rulings in order to stop immediate harm.29 Historically, its use was limited to true emergencies, such as cases when an execution was imminent. But recently, the Supreme Court has used the shadow docket more as an instrument to green-light President Trump’s agenda than to intervene in emergencies.30
As of March 2026, the second Trump administration has asked the Court to intervene when lower courts have blocked parts of its agenda 34 times — more than the Biden, Obama, and George W. Bush administrations combined.31 Of those 34 requests, the Court has issued 25 decisions on the shadow docket and ruled in the administration’s favor 80 percent of the time, sometimes overturning decades of precedent.32 In Trump v. Wilcox, for instance, the Supreme Court used the shadow docket to allow Trump to fire members of two independent agencies, even though 90 years of precedent had affirmed the illegality of such firings.33
On the shadow docket, the Supreme Court often rules without public hearings and with limited briefing. It often takes years before the Court hears these cases in full, if at all.34 By the time it does, in many cases the damage wrought by its shadow docket decisions will be irreparable — the Trump administration will have already dismantled entire government agencies and wrongfully deported individuals to countries where they will face serious danger.35
Shadow docket rulings often include no explanation or vote counts.36 By not explaining itself, the Court abdicates a principal expectation of judicial bodies: that they disclose their rationales.37 As Justice Kagan plainly put it, “Courts are supposed to explain things.”38 It’s an essential protection against arbitrary power and an important way to ensure that like cases are treated alike. Lower court judges have expressed frustration over the lack of transparency, and they are often unsure how to follow new legal standards with no guidance.39
The Court is not a secret tribunal. Congress should pass legislation reforming the shadow docket to prevent future abuse. First, Congress should codify standards to ensure that the Court takes up a case only when there is a true emergency. It is hard to understand why lower court rulings that have blocked the Trump administration from dismantling an agency or freezing scientific research grants require emergency Supreme Court intervention that bypasses the normal processes and safeguards of ordinary appeals. Second, Congress should require justices to issue brief written and signed opinions in shadow docket cases, which would provide clarity, increase transparency, and boost confidence in the fair operation of the Court.
Fast-track Congress’s response to rulings.
Congress’s failure to assert its authority as a lawmaking body has created a vacuum filled by executive abuse and Supreme Court overreach. Elected lawmakers should exercise primary authority over the design and enactment of public policy. Yet in recent years, the Court has repeatedly gutted landmark pieces of democratically enacted legislation that had earlier survived the Court’s scrutiny. For example, Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 overturned parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and laws dating back a century.40Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 suspended a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.41 And McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014 struck down a federal contribution limit for the first time.42
At other times, the Court has openly invited Congress to respond with new legislation, often to clarify muddy statutes or fill in gaps with respect to constitutional protections; for example, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause case that the question of partisan gerrymandering was one that “only Congress can resolve,” even though Justice Kagan wrote that “the partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process.”43
Congress should be able to respond quickly to misinterpretations or misguided rulings, especially when they roll back constitutional rights or undermine federal statutes. Once, such legislative responses were common. But as the Court has grown more aggressive, lawmakers have done less to respond in recent decades.44 Congress should create an expedited process for responding to rulings that upend federal laws or constitutional rights. It should allow the Senate to pass laws responding to such rulings by a simple majority, while also permitting the minority to offer input, within a certain number of days. The House should also have expedited options. This type of reform would be akin to the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress a fast path to respond to federal agency regulations. A similar law for judicial decisions would return Congress — the most democratic branch of government — to its proper place as the principal policymaking body.45
Improve the confirmation process.
Supreme Court nominations have often sparked debate. But they are increasingly marked by toxic partisan division.46 That grew much worse when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, from receiving even a hearing in 2016, claiming it was too close to the election taking place nearly nine months later.47 The vacancy lasted 422 days, the longest in the Supreme Court in more than 150 years.48 Yet in 2020, McConnell rushed through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett after early voting in that year’s election had already started.
The Constitution requires the Senate to provide “advice and consent” to confirm a nominee. But the nomination process shouldn’t be at the whim of the party in power. Every nominee deserves a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.
Congress should update its rules to restore the norm that Supreme Court nominations receive timely and effective consideration by senators and prohibit the practice of denying a nominee a vote. It should change Senate rules so that if a nomination is delayed by Senate Judiciary Committee inaction, a critical mass of senators can call for a nomination to be discharged from the committee and force a debate and a vote.
Alternatively, Congress could enact a fast-track mechanism by statute, a common vehicle that it uses to prevent certain measures — such as trade agreements, budgets, and military base closures — from being obstructed.49 After a Supreme Court nominee is referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee would have a fixed number of days to act on the nomination. Failure to do so would lead to an automatic discharge from the committee, with the nomination placed on the Senate calendar and a floor vote required. These reforms would ensure that nominees receive rightful consideration, avoid an escalation in partisan tactics, and allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty.
Allow cameras in the courtroom.
There has long been a debate over whether to broadcast Supreme Court hearings and decisions for public viewing. As public trust in the Supreme Court plunges to an all-time low, broadcasting hearings and decisions would be an important step toward transparency. It would also help Americans better understand how the Court reaches decisions that affect their lives.
The Court already broadcasts audio of hearings (although not of its opinion announcements), and all 50 state supreme courts allow video.50 Nearly two in three voters support allowing television coverage of Court oral arguments, and seven in ten believe that television coverage would build trust in the Court’s process.51
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of a public right to attend trials, which allows people to “have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed.”52 Justices themselves have said before they were confirmed that they support or would be open to considering cameras, only to oppose such an idea after joining the Court.53 The justices should match their rhetoric with action. If not, Congress has the power to act. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), for instance, have introduced the Cameras in the Courtroom Act to require cameras in the Supreme Court.54
Xavier Becerra speaks during the CBS California Gubernatorial Debate at Pomona College on April 28, 2026, in Claremont, Calif. Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images
When leading California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra was state attorney general, his office pushed the state Supreme Court to artificially inflate a Black man’s IQ in order to execute him.
Following the lead of his predecessor, former California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Becerra’s office was battling a defense that argued Robert Lewis, originally sentenced to death in 1991, was ineligible for execution because he was intellectually disabled. Lewis’s attorney, Robert Sanger, told The Intercept that while individual attorneys general can’t control everything their deputies do, he was disappointed with how Becerra’s office handled the case.
“I was kind of feeling like it would be a good time for the AG to say, ‘OK, we tried and he’s intellectually disabled. We got that determination made. Let’s just let it go,’” Sanger recalled. “Instead, it went all the way to oral arguments in front of the [state] Supreme Court.”
The effort failed: The Supreme Court of California overturned Lewis’s death sentence in 2018, and the state legislature overwhelmingly passed a measure banning the practice of adjusting IQ based on race in death penalty cases two years later.
Becerra is now polling first in the crowded race to replace term-limited Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. His campaign had at first lagged behind his opponents, but then-Rep. Eric Swalwell was hit with explosive sexual assault allegations — which he denies — and dropped out, and Becerra surged to the front of the field. He’s just ahead of Trump-backed Republican candidate Steve Hilton, followed by Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund billionaire racking up endorsements from progressive groups including Our Revolution and praise from the California chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
In Lewis’s case, Becerra picked up where Harris left off; her office had been the first to ask the courts to artificially inflate Lewis’s IQ so the state could execute him.
“On the one hand, he’s part of a long line of Democratic attorney generals who have taken this approach of, ‘It’s not my problem,’ not accepting responsibility for what their criminal attorneys are doing in court,” said Natasha Minsker, who leads the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition, which helped push the bill banning the practice of race-based IQ adjustments for people on death row. “On the other hand, it just demonstrates where their true priorities and values are.”
Becerra has not taken a clear public position on the death penalty in his gubernatorial campaign, but his critics have raised concerns about his pursuit of executions at a time when his party was moving in the opposite direction. He has said he has “serious reservations” about the death penalty and voted for a 2016 state ballot measure to abolish it in California, where the state hasn’t executed anyone since 2006. Still, two years after his vote, Becerra’s office argued to execute Lewis. Though Newsom imposed a moratorium on capital punishment in 2019, Becerra fought to uphold death penalty sentences during the Covid-19 pandemic. And though he oversaw law enforcement for four years in California, a state that has significantly cut its prison population in recent years and adopted other reforms under pressure from activists, Becerra’s criminal justice record has not played a large part in his gubernatorial campaign.
After serving as California attorney general, Becerra was named secretary of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. His name recognition from that post, plus 24 years in Congress, have earned him endorsements from Democrats including Reps. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., and Ted Lieu, D-Calif.; state and local elected officials; and several labor unions including SEIU California, California State Council of Laborers, and the United Nurses Associations of California.
Still, his former colleagues from his time leading HHS raised eyebrows as his campaign gathered speed after Swalwell’s exit, and some of Becerra’s critics have seized on his overseeing of migrant children as HHS secretary. Also looming behind his surge is a criminal trial involving his former political adviser and Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, who pleaded guilty on Thursday to three felonies in a corruption case involving scheme to steal money from Becerra’s campaign. In a statement last week after the plea, Becerra said; “As I said from day one, I was not involved, I did nothing wrong. And now the record confirms it. We can close the book on this.”
Becerra’s criminal justice record has received less scrutiny in the gubernatorial race, where Becerra is competing with Republican opponents stressing their own tough-on-crime bonafides.
Becerra’s campaign website outlines his priorities as fighting Donald Trump, building more affordable housing, lowering costs, building clean energy, improving California’s disaster preparedness, channeling AI “for human benefit,” and addressing homelessness. It does not have a specific page devoted to criminal justice.
“Democratic politicians want to take credit for the progressive things they did as attorney general, but they are not taking responsibility for the regressive positions that the office advanced under their leadership.”
In response to a questionnaire from the political arm of the California chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, which declined to comment on Becerra’s record for this story, Becerra said he agrees with reforms like prioritizing prevention strategies over punitive sentencing and improving funding and staffing for public defender’s offices. He also said he would support banning facial recognition in police body cameras, more public access to police records, and having social service workers respond to homelessness and mental health crises instead of police.
“We see this repeatedly,” Minsker said. “Democratic politicians want to take credit for the progressive things they did as attorney general, but they are not taking responsibility for the regressive positions that the office advanced under their leadership.”
Becerra’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
We’re independent of corporate interests — and powered by members. Join us.
While Becerra has not had to thoroughly address his criminal justice record yet on the campaign trail, the topic plagued his predecessor as attorney general, Kamala Harris, when she ran for president in 2020.
Harris, who served as California attorney general from 2011 to 2017 and San Francisco district attorney before that, faced myriad attacks from left and right that hampered her first presidential bid over her prosecutorial record while she campaigned as a reformer.
At the time, activists across the United States were animated by the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, which set off a wave of protests and heightened scrutiny of so-called “tough on crime” politics. Six years later, the political winds have largely shifted.
Sanger, the attorney in the IQ death penalty case, said he felt that some of the attacks on Harris were unfair, because attorneys general “can’t go through and regulate every single thing that their deputies do in these very complex cases.” But, he added, he’s been generally dissatisfied with California’s last three top prosecutors.
“I have been disappointed in each one of those attorneys general in not taking a more active role with their deputy attorneys general, and with them not taking a position on the death penalty,” Sanger said.
As attorney general, Becerra also faced criticism for shielding police from measures designed to hold them accountable. Two major California newspaper editorial boards wrote scathing criticisms in 2019 saying Becerra sided with law enforcement “against public transparency” and had betrayed both “public trust and the law” by not complying with a state police transparency law.
At the time, Becerra threatened to charge journalists with crimes unless they destroyed a list of police officers convicted of crimes. Becerra took more than $300,000 in campaign funds from law enforcement unions in his run for attorney general. The political action committee for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, a state prison guards’ union, gave $320,000 to a group backing Becerra and other candidates that cycle. News outlets raised questions about his ability to “police the police,” while owing much of his campaign support to their unions.
The prison guard’s union gave $25,000 in March to a group opposing Steyer. The group, “California is Not for Sale, No on Steyer for Governor 2026, a Coalition of Housing Advocates, Labor and Small Business,” is spending $24 million against Steyer and is backed by the state’s real estate and energy industries. Steyer is self-funding his campaign with more than $120 million. The CCPOA did not respond to a request for comment.
The prison guards’ union is one of many special interest groups that have played an outsized role in California politics, said James King, a formerly incarcerated prison reform advocate in Oakland. King, who is supporting Steyer, said the CCPOA was spending against Steyer because he is campaigning against those kinds of special interests. Plus, the union wants to preserve its budget, which has increased even as the state has shrunk its prison population in recent years, King said.
“It’s deeply ironic” that groups including the CCPOA “are funding an initiative called ‘California is Not for Sale,’” King said. “They have shown time and time again that they are only interested in advancing the status quo. And it’s clear that any candidate they are working to oppose and spending money to oppose, they must see as a threat to the status quo.”
Monterrosa’s sister, Michelle Monterrosa, told the San Francisco Standard last week that she won’t vote for Becerra in the gubernatorial election. “How can we trust someone who continues to put his own advancement before actually standing with the people?” Monterrosa said.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos drew ridicule on Wednesday after he claimed that doubling the amount of taxes he pays wouldn’t be beneficial to society.
During an interview on CNBC, journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Bezos about arguments made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that the super-rich have lower effective tax rates than average Americans given how much of their wealth comes from unrealized capital gains and not traditional income earned through actual labor.
“I pay billions of dollars in taxes,” replied Bezos, whom Forbes estimates is worth $267 billion. “If people want me to pay billions more, then let’s have that debate. But don’t pretend, you know, that that’s going to solve the problem. You could double the taxes I pay, and it’s not gonna help that teacher in Queens, I promise you.”
Bezos on CNBC: "You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not gonna help that teacher in Queens. I promise you." pic.twitter.com/ocbf34XZhA
A 2021 investigation by Pro Publica found that Bezos’ effective tax rate of less than 1% between 2014 and 2018, as he paid a total of $973 million in taxes over a period in which his net worth grew by $99 billion.
As explained by the Institute of Taxation and Policy (ITEP), this effective tax rate was “significantly lower” than the tax rate paid by middle-class Americans over that period.
“There were multiple years where Bezos paid nothing at all in income taxes,” ITEP noted. “While having billions of dollars of wealth, Bezos consistently avoided income tax by offsetting earned income with other investment losses and various deductions, all while Amazon stock was rapidly rising.”
Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros in Colorado suggested Bezos had a point about taxation—“because we tax income, not wealth.
“Bezos takes out a tiny salary, pays the income tax, and lives off loans borrowed against his stocks, basically tax-free,” said Kiros. “They all do this and now 935 billionaires hold more wealth than 170 million Americans. It’s time to tax wealth.”
Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, took issue with Bezos’ claim that doubling his taxes would produce no benefits.
“Jeff Bezos paid $500 million for his super-yacht and $75 million for his super-yacht’s mini-yacht—both of which he’s allowed to write off on his taxes,” she wrote in a social media post. “That alone would cover $180 in classroom supplies for every public school teacher in the US.”
Craig Harrington, research director at Media Matters for America, marveled at how out of touch Bezos seemed to be.
“There’s a funny thing about being uber wealthy,” he observed. “They get so rich that they lose all sense of place, they essentially manifest as stateless people with no connection to or understanding of the world outside their private airports and resplendent villas.”
Journalist and screenwriter David Simon expressed a similar view of the impact of immense wealth on Bezos’ psyche.
“Too much money contorts any human being,” Simon wrote. “And what was once a man is now, for the rest of the world, a fully metastasized cancer.”
Author Hemant Mehta, meanwhile, simply wondered if Bezos “auditioning to be the next Bond villain.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
May 7, 2026 Corporate Dems in SF are starting to sound a lot like Republicans in Congress. Their message is clear: question the establishment, and you’re not welcome in the party. Well, sorry, but you don’t own this party. That’s why, tonight, we’re rallying with Hasan Piker and other candidates who are taking no corp money and primarying corporate Democrats across the country. Let’s take this party back so we can take this country back.
An urgent message from Rosa Martinez, known as Rudy during their time as a student in San Marcos where they were an important part of the town’s literary and music community.
Rudy Martinez · Original audio
Our friends aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla have been intercepted by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) or the forces of a country complicit in the …
California’s Governor’s race has shifted. The risk of two Republicans topping the field has sharply declined. Xavier Becerra is first or second in recent polls with Tom Steyer close behind; both could make the November runoff.
I was out of the country when polls found Eric Swalwell voters primarily switching to Becerra. Bacerra has since become the Democratic frontrunner. How long this lasts is unclear. After long being ignored by rivals, Becerra is under attack in both paid media and major newspapers. He may have peaked too soon.
I’ve always had good feelings about Becerra. I met him last fall where we had a brief talk. I told him how disappointed I was that Senator Alex Padilla decided not to run for Governor; I didn’t know Becerra was a candidate).
Progressives are Backing Steyer
With Becerra now among the top two in polls, he offers the historic opportunity for California to elect a Latino Governor. But as looked into his backers I found virtually no progressive legislators. I had previously noted that two of the most solid Sacramento progressives—Isaac Bryan of Culver City and San Jose’s Alex Lee—had endorsed Tom Steyer. Steyer has since been endorsed by the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association, UNITE HERE, the Sierra Club and a host of other progressive organizations and activists.
Betty Yee, my original choice for governor, left the race and endorsed Steyer.
Some are reluctant to favor a white billionaire over a longtime Latino public official. But the political differences between Steyer and Becerra are not a close call. Steyer is clearly more progressive.
Steyer would be among the nation’s most progressive governors. And likely California’s most progressive governor since Jerry Brown first two terms. Unlike Brown and Gavin Newsom, Steyer would work more closely with legislators and constituency groups. Lacking the charisma and personal following of his predecessors, Steyer would bring a more collaborative leadership model.
Billionaires have spent millions attacking Steyer. Many rich people see Steyer as a traitor to his class.
The Mystery of CA Politics
The California economy is among the world’s largest. Yet few voters pay close attention to legislative actions in Sacramento. Nor do they seem well informed about what Governor Newsom actually does.
There isn’t much media coverage about what happens in California government outside of Newsom press events. I don’t think most California voters have a clear sense of the governor’s powers. They clearly do not hear enough about the backroom dealing that is par for the course in Sacramento.
California’s governor can create a positive progressive political model for the nation. Newsom tries to do this but when he promotes progressive state policies he’s accused of really promoting his expected 2028 presidential run.
Promoting a California policy model won’t be a problem for Tom Steyer.
What About Porter and Mahan?
Katie Porter is a solid progressive. She simply has not resonated with the electorate. In recent polls Porter is at 10% and 12%. She will not become California’s first woman governor.
For moderate Democrats, San Jose’s Matt Mahan remains in the race. In a February story I foresaw a huge upside for Mahan. I thought he could become the front-runner. But his campaign never took off despite ample funding from the tech sector.
The two most recent polls have Mahan in 6th place at 7% and 8%. It appears Mahan wasn’t ready to run a statewide campaign. Gavin Newsom held elective office for over a decade before running for Lieutenant Governor; Mahan started his political career on the San Jose City Council in 2021.
The overwhelming Democratic legislature is not as progressive as many believe. That’s why progressives need to support the most progressive governor’s candidate who can win. Tom Steyer is the one.
Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. Shaw’s new book is the revised and updated, The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco. His prior books include Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America. The Activist’s Handbook: Winning Social Change in the 21st Century, and Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century.
Unstoppable: Milk Club 50th Anniversary Gayla Date: Friday, May 22 Reception: 6PM Dinner and Awards: 7:30PM Concert: 9PM Location: San Francisco Design Center Galleria Tickets: Click here to buy tickets
When you volunteer for Saikat, it’s on us to give you a great experience and a genuine chance to make a difference. We don’t want to waste a second of your time. That’s why we’re always optimizing. And I’m excited to report that this Saturday we talked with 300% more... Continue reading →
Trump Regime Takedown: Every Saturday Saturday, March 7, 2026 12:00 PM 2:00 PM Tesla San Francisco999 Van Ness AvenueSan Francisco, CA, 94109United States (map) Google Calendar ICS Keep democracy alive every Saturday by showing up, taking a stand, and sticking together for the long haul. Standing together is better than standing alone. Let’s get together... Continue reading →
This Sunday’s Town Hall: Announcing This Week’s Progressive Town Hall: Every Sunday at 4pm ET/1pm PT RSVP HERE Join PDA activists online from across the country to discuss the importance of progressives reclaiming the American story from the MAGA right, an issue of heightened importance as we’re now within one... Continue reading →
We protest Heritage Foundation EVERY MONDAY (Join us!!!!) By admin | September 2, 2025 | Uncategorized Cliff Cash Comedy Premiered Jul 26, 2025 Every Monday at The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza Every Friday at Fox News D.C. 400 N. Capitol St. Washington D.C. 4pm protest 6pm pizza We are... Continue reading →
Milk Club Trans Caucus Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 26 Time: 5-7 PM Location and Zoom Link: Meeting info available to members of the Milk Club Trans Caucus. Please reach out to trans@milkclub.org if you would like to join the Milk Club Trans Caucus.
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
