SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
'In 2019, U.S. corporations claimed to earn profits in five different countries that exceeded those countries’ entire economic outputs."
The governments of the United States and Europe should stop using tiny British territories as pawns to allow corporations to avoid contributing to fund schools, roads, and public safety.
Where should the profits of global corporations be taxed? It is not an easy question. If a corporation has engineers in California, manufacturing centers in Asia, assembly plants in Texas, and sells to consumers across North America and Europe, there are legitimate questions about which jurisdictions they are “earning” their profits in and thus where they might owe corporate income taxes.
One thing is clear, though: they are not earning their profits in a mailbox in the Cayman Islands, a tiny British territory in the Caribbean that politicians in London and Washington treat as an independent nation for tax purposes. Yet many American corporations tell the Internal Revenue Service that they earn their profits in this island nation where they do no actual business. One office building in the Cayman Islands—just five stories tall—is home to more than 18,000 companies. Given that the British government has provided few options for real economic development, Cayman understandably welcomes the incorporation fees this generates. But is this any way to structure an international tax system?
With the EU and United Kingdom fully on board, it is time for Congress to follow suit and implement the plan negotiated by the administration. Doing so would improve the corporate tax system here and around the world while making the United States economy stronger and more competitive.
Nearly every nation, from the United States to the United Kingdom to the Cayman Islands, has recently decided it is not. Over the past two years, the Biden administration has led negotiations of an international agreement with other leading economies ensuring the largest multinational corporations pay taxes in the countries where they do business. The plan would require any corporation earning more than €750 million (about $800 million) to pay at least a 15 percent corporate income tax rate on their global profits in the countries where they have economic activities.
Last week, the European Union reached unanimous agreement to implement this global minimum tax beginning in 2024. With the EU and United Kingdom fully on board, it is time for Congress to follow suit and implement the plan negotiated by the administration. Doing so would improve the corporate tax system here and around the world while making the United States economy stronger and more competitive.
The Current Global Tax System Favors Small Tax Havens and Large Corporations
While the official corporate tax rate in the United States is 21 percent, corporations use many tactics to effectively pay much less. The most infamous of these tactics exploit accounting gimmicks to make corporate profits appear to be earned in tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Ireland. For example, a U.S. company could place a patent or trademark in a subsidiary incorporated in a country that will impose little or no tax on its profits, even if the company has no other business activities in that country. It will then tell the IRS that its profits are generated from that intellectual property, which in turn means that the profits are generated by the tax haven subsidiary rather than in the United States.
Nike, for example, owns many subsidiaries sporting the names of popular product lines in countries like Bermuda and the Netherlands that impose no tax or one that is easily avoided. It does not take a genius to conclude that Nike placed the trademarks for each of its product lines in one of these tax haven subsidiaries and then told the IRS that the profits were therefore generated abroad in these jurisdictions where they will not be taxed.
In some cases, the discrepancy between claimed profits and real economic activity is especially egregious. In 2019, U.S. corporations claimed to earn profits in five different countries that exceeded those countries’ entire economic outputs. American companies claimed to earn over $60 billion in the Cayman Islands—ten times the entire country’s gross domestic product. The year before, American corporations claimed to have earned over 13 times the GDP of Bermuda in Bermuda.
In another demonstration of how disconnected this tax reporting is from reality, IRS data reveals these companies often have very few employees in the countries where they claim to earn their profits. If the tax filings are to be believed, then American corporations earned nearly $60 million for every employee they hired in the small British territory of Gibraltar. If multinational corporations were truly tapping that much productivity from Gibraltar’s workers, then the economic puzzle of the millennium would be how the country’s total GDP only amounts to about $60,000 per person. The real answer is obvious, however: the tax reporting does not reflect economic reality.
Corporations are not necessarily breaking the law when they report obviously implausible profits to the IRS. Rather, they are exploiting weaknesses in the global tax and legal system. The result is a tax system that works for nobody other than rich corporate shareholders (and the financial services industry). Multinational corporations take advantage of the labor of large countries like the US and China that is developed through public education, of international shipping routes that are largely protected by the U.S. Navy, of markets that are only possible through public ports and roads, and then pay none of the taxes that support these investments.
The New International Agreement Would Shut Down Offshore Tax Dodging by Corporations
Recognizing the need for international cooperation on the issue, the Biden Administration began negotiating with other major economies last year to create a more fair and effective global tax system. In October 2021, 136 countries signed on to an agreement to implement a global minimum tax system (called the “GLoBE” rules, for Global Anti-Base Erosion). If implemented, the agreement would ensure that large, multinational corporations pay a minimum tax rate of at least 15 percent.
The exact details are complicated, but the crux is that companies would have to start paying taxes according to where they are selling products and services rather than where they register a post office box. GLoBE rules would apply to corporations with more than €750 million in revenues in recent years—or about $800 million. The actual effective tax rate that these companies pay must be at least 15 percent (not including deductions for depreciation or certain tax credits).
The GLoBE rules eliminate the incentive for countries to engage in a race to the bottom. First, the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) allows countries implementing the minimum tax to apply a top-up tax to corporations headquartered within their borders if the corporation is paying an effective tax rate below 15 percent in another country where it operates. This means that if a corporation is based in a country that has implemented the agreement, that country can apply an additional tax on the company's profits in a tax haven to bring the effective tax rate up to 15 percent.
Second, the Under Taxed Payments Rule (UTPR) allows countries to apply a top-up tax to foreign companies operating within their borders if the corporation’s home country has not implemented the GLoBE rules and the company is paying an effective tax rate less than 15 percent in some other country. This means that if a country is not implementing the international agreement its own corporations could nonetheless pay a tax rate of at least 15 percent because the other countries where those companies operate are imposing a top-up tax under the UTPR. And the country failing to implement the minimum tax would be allowing foreign governments to collect this revenue.
Although an agreement was signed last October by all major economies to implement the GLoBE rules, the actual implementation process is the most daunting step. Countries must work within their own political and legislative processes to adapt the international agreement into their tax systems. The European Union’s decision to implement the rules beginning in 2024 marks crucial momentum for the agreement, especially after the United Kingdom previously announced they would begin enforcing the rules that same year. The UK and EU combined represent about a fifth of the entire world economy.
The United States is the Last Major Hurdle for International Implementation
Despite negotiating the GLoBE rules, the U.S. has not yet taken the steps to fully implement them. While the U.S. does have tax rules for “global intangible low-tax income” (GILTI) that are similar to the GLoBE rules, the GILTI tax applies to a smaller portion of income and only at a rate of 10.5 percent. The U.S. also adopted a 15 percent corporate minimum tax in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, but that tax is also not completely in line with the international agreement. For example, the IRA minimum tax considers a company’s worldwide effective tax rate rather than their per-country tax rate.
Although the U.S. signed the agreement last October, implementation will require Congress passing legislative changes to our tax laws. The prospects of the U.S. implementing the rules by 2024 look dim, with the 117th Congress coming to an end without adopting the new rules and with Republicans who are opposed to the plan set to take over the House of Representatives next year.
The basis of Republican opposition to the agreement is not clear, and their statements on the matter are vague and nonsensical. Rep. Vern Buchanan—who could become the chair of the House’s main tax writing committee—told reporters that “the United States will not be bullied into accepting an agreement that fails to protect American workers and businesses from discriminatory foreign taxes.” On the contrary, failure to implement the GLoBE rules could subject American businesses to foreign taxes under the previously mentioned UTPR top-up tax.
Recently, GOP lawmakers on key tax committees sent a letter to the President claiming that the White House does not have the authority to negotiate such international tax agreements. This assertion is hard to follow, as the Constitution plainly gives the President the power to conduct diplomacy and set foreign policy objectives.
Most astonishingly, the Republicans’ letter asserts, “We are not aware of any administration – Republican or Democrat – that has so blatantly used its role in international tax negotiations to advance its partisan political agenda.” This actually describes the Republican lawmakers’ own behavior. Earlier this year, Congressional Republicans negotiated behind the scenes with the authoritarian Hungarian government to try to kill implementation of the global minimum tax in the EU. While the tactic ultimately failed, it did present a serious hurdle to the agreement, as the EU’s rules require all member countries to consent to any tax agreement.
Contrary to Republican claims that the GLoBE rules are anti-competitive, or that the US is being bullied into accepting some agreement that will hurt the country, the plan was negotiated by our own diplomats to make the international system work for all Americans rather than for the shareholders who are concentrated among our richest one percent and among foreign investors. Multinational corporations should not be able to skirt their taxes by “earning” all their money in a post office box while American workers dutifully pay their taxes every paycheck. The governments of the United States and Europe should stop using tiny British territories as pawns to allow corporations to avoid contributing to fund schools, roads, and public safety. Moving forward with implementation will make the United States economy stronger and more competitive, not less.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Where should the profits of global corporations be taxed? It is not an easy question. If a corporation has engineers in California, manufacturing centers in Asia, assembly plants in Texas, and sells to consumers across North America and Europe, there are legitimate questions about which jurisdictions they are “earning” their profits in and thus where they might owe corporate income taxes.
One thing is clear, though: they are not earning their profits in a mailbox in the Cayman Islands, a tiny British territory in the Caribbean that politicians in London and Washington treat as an independent nation for tax purposes. Yet many American corporations tell the Internal Revenue Service that they earn their profits in this island nation where they do no actual business. One office building in the Cayman Islands—just five stories tall—is home to more than 18,000 companies. Given that the British government has provided few options for real economic development, Cayman understandably welcomes the incorporation fees this generates. But is this any way to structure an international tax system?
With the EU and United Kingdom fully on board, it is time for Congress to follow suit and implement the plan negotiated by the administration. Doing so would improve the corporate tax system here and around the world while making the United States economy stronger and more competitive.
Nearly every nation, from the United States to the United Kingdom to the Cayman Islands, has recently decided it is not. Over the past two years, the Biden administration has led negotiations of an international agreement with other leading economies ensuring the largest multinational corporations pay taxes in the countries where they do business. The plan would require any corporation earning more than €750 million (about $800 million) to pay at least a 15 percent corporate income tax rate on their global profits in the countries where they have economic activities.
Last week, the European Union reached unanimous agreement to implement this global minimum tax beginning in 2024. With the EU and United Kingdom fully on board, it is time for Congress to follow suit and implement the plan negotiated by the administration. Doing so would improve the corporate tax system here and around the world while making the United States economy stronger and more competitive.
The Current Global Tax System Favors Small Tax Havens and Large Corporations
While the official corporate tax rate in the United States is 21 percent, corporations use many tactics to effectively pay much less. The most infamous of these tactics exploit accounting gimmicks to make corporate profits appear to be earned in tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Ireland. For example, a U.S. company could place a patent or trademark in a subsidiary incorporated in a country that will impose little or no tax on its profits, even if the company has no other business activities in that country. It will then tell the IRS that its profits are generated from that intellectual property, which in turn means that the profits are generated by the tax haven subsidiary rather than in the United States.
Nike, for example, owns many subsidiaries sporting the names of popular product lines in countries like Bermuda and the Netherlands that impose no tax or one that is easily avoided. It does not take a genius to conclude that Nike placed the trademarks for each of its product lines in one of these tax haven subsidiaries and then told the IRS that the profits were therefore generated abroad in these jurisdictions where they will not be taxed.
In some cases, the discrepancy between claimed profits and real economic activity is especially egregious. In 2019, U.S. corporations claimed to earn profits in five different countries that exceeded those countries’ entire economic outputs. American companies claimed to earn over $60 billion in the Cayman Islands—ten times the entire country’s gross domestic product. The year before, American corporations claimed to have earned over 13 times the GDP of Bermuda in Bermuda.
In another demonstration of how disconnected this tax reporting is from reality, IRS data reveals these companies often have very few employees in the countries where they claim to earn their profits. If the tax filings are to be believed, then American corporations earned nearly $60 million for every employee they hired in the small British territory of Gibraltar. If multinational corporations were truly tapping that much productivity from Gibraltar’s workers, then the economic puzzle of the millennium would be how the country’s total GDP only amounts to about $60,000 per person. The real answer is obvious, however: the tax reporting does not reflect economic reality.
Corporations are not necessarily breaking the law when they report obviously implausible profits to the IRS. Rather, they are exploiting weaknesses in the global tax and legal system. The result is a tax system that works for nobody other than rich corporate shareholders (and the financial services industry). Multinational corporations take advantage of the labor of large countries like the US and China that is developed through public education, of international shipping routes that are largely protected by the U.S. Navy, of markets that are only possible through public ports and roads, and then pay none of the taxes that support these investments.
The New International Agreement Would Shut Down Offshore Tax Dodging by Corporations
Recognizing the need for international cooperation on the issue, the Biden Administration began negotiating with other major economies last year to create a more fair and effective global tax system. In October 2021, 136 countries signed on to an agreement to implement a global minimum tax system (called the “GLoBE” rules, for Global Anti-Base Erosion). If implemented, the agreement would ensure that large, multinational corporations pay a minimum tax rate of at least 15 percent.
The exact details are complicated, but the crux is that companies would have to start paying taxes according to where they are selling products and services rather than where they register a post office box. GLoBE rules would apply to corporations with more than €750 million in revenues in recent years—or about $800 million. The actual effective tax rate that these companies pay must be at least 15 percent (not including deductions for depreciation or certain tax credits).
The GLoBE rules eliminate the incentive for countries to engage in a race to the bottom. First, the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) allows countries implementing the minimum tax to apply a top-up tax to corporations headquartered within their borders if the corporation is paying an effective tax rate below 15 percent in another country where it operates. This means that if a corporation is based in a country that has implemented the agreement, that country can apply an additional tax on the company's profits in a tax haven to bring the effective tax rate up to 15 percent.
Second, the Under Taxed Payments Rule (UTPR) allows countries to apply a top-up tax to foreign companies operating within their borders if the corporation’s home country has not implemented the GLoBE rules and the company is paying an effective tax rate less than 15 percent in some other country. This means that if a country is not implementing the international agreement its own corporations could nonetheless pay a tax rate of at least 15 percent because the other countries where those companies operate are imposing a top-up tax under the UTPR. And the country failing to implement the minimum tax would be allowing foreign governments to collect this revenue.
Although an agreement was signed last October by all major economies to implement the GLoBE rules, the actual implementation process is the most daunting step. Countries must work within their own political and legislative processes to adapt the international agreement into their tax systems. The European Union’s decision to implement the rules beginning in 2024 marks crucial momentum for the agreement, especially after the United Kingdom previously announced they would begin enforcing the rules that same year. The UK and EU combined represent about a fifth of the entire world economy.
The United States is the Last Major Hurdle for International Implementation
Despite negotiating the GLoBE rules, the U.S. has not yet taken the steps to fully implement them. While the U.S. does have tax rules for “global intangible low-tax income” (GILTI) that are similar to the GLoBE rules, the GILTI tax applies to a smaller portion of income and only at a rate of 10.5 percent. The U.S. also adopted a 15 percent corporate minimum tax in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, but that tax is also not completely in line with the international agreement. For example, the IRA minimum tax considers a company’s worldwide effective tax rate rather than their per-country tax rate.
Although the U.S. signed the agreement last October, implementation will require Congress passing legislative changes to our tax laws. The prospects of the U.S. implementing the rules by 2024 look dim, with the 117th Congress coming to an end without adopting the new rules and with Republicans who are opposed to the plan set to take over the House of Representatives next year.
The basis of Republican opposition to the agreement is not clear, and their statements on the matter are vague and nonsensical. Rep. Vern Buchanan—who could become the chair of the House’s main tax writing committee—told reporters that “the United States will not be bullied into accepting an agreement that fails to protect American workers and businesses from discriminatory foreign taxes.” On the contrary, failure to implement the GLoBE rules could subject American businesses to foreign taxes under the previously mentioned UTPR top-up tax.
Recently, GOP lawmakers on key tax committees sent a letter to the President claiming that the White House does not have the authority to negotiate such international tax agreements. This assertion is hard to follow, as the Constitution plainly gives the President the power to conduct diplomacy and set foreign policy objectives.
Most astonishingly, the Republicans’ letter asserts, “We are not aware of any administration – Republican or Democrat – that has so blatantly used its role in international tax negotiations to advance its partisan political agenda.” This actually describes the Republican lawmakers’ own behavior. Earlier this year, Congressional Republicans negotiated behind the scenes with the authoritarian Hungarian government to try to kill implementation of the global minimum tax in the EU. While the tactic ultimately failed, it did present a serious hurdle to the agreement, as the EU’s rules require all member countries to consent to any tax agreement.
Contrary to Republican claims that the GLoBE rules are anti-competitive, or that the US is being bullied into accepting some agreement that will hurt the country, the plan was negotiated by our own diplomats to make the international system work for all Americans rather than for the shareholders who are concentrated among our richest one percent and among foreign investors. Multinational corporations should not be able to skirt their taxes by “earning” all their money in a post office box while American workers dutifully pay their taxes every paycheck. The governments of the United States and Europe should stop using tiny British territories as pawns to allow corporations to avoid contributing to fund schools, roads, and public safety. Moving forward with implementation will make the United States economy stronger and more competitive, not less.
Where should the profits of global corporations be taxed? It is not an easy question. If a corporation has engineers in California, manufacturing centers in Asia, assembly plants in Texas, and sells to consumers across North America and Europe, there are legitimate questions about which jurisdictions they are “earning” their profits in and thus where they might owe corporate income taxes.
One thing is clear, though: they are not earning their profits in a mailbox in the Cayman Islands, a tiny British territory in the Caribbean that politicians in London and Washington treat as an independent nation for tax purposes. Yet many American corporations tell the Internal Revenue Service that they earn their profits in this island nation where they do no actual business. One office building in the Cayman Islands—just five stories tall—is home to more than 18,000 companies. Given that the British government has provided few options for real economic development, Cayman understandably welcomes the incorporation fees this generates. But is this any way to structure an international tax system?
With the EU and United Kingdom fully on board, it is time for Congress to follow suit and implement the plan negotiated by the administration. Doing so would improve the corporate tax system here and around the world while making the United States economy stronger and more competitive.
Nearly every nation, from the United States to the United Kingdom to the Cayman Islands, has recently decided it is not. Over the past two years, the Biden administration has led negotiations of an international agreement with other leading economies ensuring the largest multinational corporations pay taxes in the countries where they do business. The plan would require any corporation earning more than €750 million (about $800 million) to pay at least a 15 percent corporate income tax rate on their global profits in the countries where they have economic activities.
Last week, the European Union reached unanimous agreement to implement this global minimum tax beginning in 2024. With the EU and United Kingdom fully on board, it is time for Congress to follow suit and implement the plan negotiated by the administration. Doing so would improve the corporate tax system here and around the world while making the United States economy stronger and more competitive.
The Current Global Tax System Favors Small Tax Havens and Large Corporations
While the official corporate tax rate in the United States is 21 percent, corporations use many tactics to effectively pay much less. The most infamous of these tactics exploit accounting gimmicks to make corporate profits appear to be earned in tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Ireland. For example, a U.S. company could place a patent or trademark in a subsidiary incorporated in a country that will impose little or no tax on its profits, even if the company has no other business activities in that country. It will then tell the IRS that its profits are generated from that intellectual property, which in turn means that the profits are generated by the tax haven subsidiary rather than in the United States.
Nike, for example, owns many subsidiaries sporting the names of popular product lines in countries like Bermuda and the Netherlands that impose no tax or one that is easily avoided. It does not take a genius to conclude that Nike placed the trademarks for each of its product lines in one of these tax haven subsidiaries and then told the IRS that the profits were therefore generated abroad in these jurisdictions where they will not be taxed.
In some cases, the discrepancy between claimed profits and real economic activity is especially egregious. In 2019, U.S. corporations claimed to earn profits in five different countries that exceeded those countries’ entire economic outputs. American companies claimed to earn over $60 billion in the Cayman Islands—ten times the entire country’s gross domestic product. The year before, American corporations claimed to have earned over 13 times the GDP of Bermuda in Bermuda.
In another demonstration of how disconnected this tax reporting is from reality, IRS data reveals these companies often have very few employees in the countries where they claim to earn their profits. If the tax filings are to be believed, then American corporations earned nearly $60 million for every employee they hired in the small British territory of Gibraltar. If multinational corporations were truly tapping that much productivity from Gibraltar’s workers, then the economic puzzle of the millennium would be how the country’s total GDP only amounts to about $60,000 per person. The real answer is obvious, however: the tax reporting does not reflect economic reality.
Corporations are not necessarily breaking the law when they report obviously implausible profits to the IRS. Rather, they are exploiting weaknesses in the global tax and legal system. The result is a tax system that works for nobody other than rich corporate shareholders (and the financial services industry). Multinational corporations take advantage of the labor of large countries like the US and China that is developed through public education, of international shipping routes that are largely protected by the U.S. Navy, of markets that are only possible through public ports and roads, and then pay none of the taxes that support these investments.
The New International Agreement Would Shut Down Offshore Tax Dodging by Corporations
Recognizing the need for international cooperation on the issue, the Biden Administration began negotiating with other major economies last year to create a more fair and effective global tax system. In October 2021, 136 countries signed on to an agreement to implement a global minimum tax system (called the “GLoBE” rules, for Global Anti-Base Erosion). If implemented, the agreement would ensure that large, multinational corporations pay a minimum tax rate of at least 15 percent.
The exact details are complicated, but the crux is that companies would have to start paying taxes according to where they are selling products and services rather than where they register a post office box. GLoBE rules would apply to corporations with more than €750 million in revenues in recent years—or about $800 million. The actual effective tax rate that these companies pay must be at least 15 percent (not including deductions for depreciation or certain tax credits).
The GLoBE rules eliminate the incentive for countries to engage in a race to the bottom. First, the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) allows countries implementing the minimum tax to apply a top-up tax to corporations headquartered within their borders if the corporation is paying an effective tax rate below 15 percent in another country where it operates. This means that if a corporation is based in a country that has implemented the agreement, that country can apply an additional tax on the company's profits in a tax haven to bring the effective tax rate up to 15 percent.
Second, the Under Taxed Payments Rule (UTPR) allows countries to apply a top-up tax to foreign companies operating within their borders if the corporation’s home country has not implemented the GLoBE rules and the company is paying an effective tax rate less than 15 percent in some other country. This means that if a country is not implementing the international agreement its own corporations could nonetheless pay a tax rate of at least 15 percent because the other countries where those companies operate are imposing a top-up tax under the UTPR. And the country failing to implement the minimum tax would be allowing foreign governments to collect this revenue.
Although an agreement was signed last October by all major economies to implement the GLoBE rules, the actual implementation process is the most daunting step. Countries must work within their own political and legislative processes to adapt the international agreement into their tax systems. The European Union’s decision to implement the rules beginning in 2024 marks crucial momentum for the agreement, especially after the United Kingdom previously announced they would begin enforcing the rules that same year. The UK and EU combined represent about a fifth of the entire world economy.
The United States is the Last Major Hurdle for International Implementation
Despite negotiating the GLoBE rules, the U.S. has not yet taken the steps to fully implement them. While the U.S. does have tax rules for “global intangible low-tax income” (GILTI) that are similar to the GLoBE rules, the GILTI tax applies to a smaller portion of income and only at a rate of 10.5 percent. The U.S. also adopted a 15 percent corporate minimum tax in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, but that tax is also not completely in line with the international agreement. For example, the IRA minimum tax considers a company’s worldwide effective tax rate rather than their per-country tax rate.
Although the U.S. signed the agreement last October, implementation will require Congress passing legislative changes to our tax laws. The prospects of the U.S. implementing the rules by 2024 look dim, with the 117th Congress coming to an end without adopting the new rules and with Republicans who are opposed to the plan set to take over the House of Representatives next year.
The basis of Republican opposition to the agreement is not clear, and their statements on the matter are vague and nonsensical. Rep. Vern Buchanan—who could become the chair of the House’s main tax writing committee—told reporters that “the United States will not be bullied into accepting an agreement that fails to protect American workers and businesses from discriminatory foreign taxes.” On the contrary, failure to implement the GLoBE rules could subject American businesses to foreign taxes under the previously mentioned UTPR top-up tax.
Recently, GOP lawmakers on key tax committees sent a letter to the President claiming that the White House does not have the authority to negotiate such international tax agreements. This assertion is hard to follow, as the Constitution plainly gives the President the power to conduct diplomacy and set foreign policy objectives.
Most astonishingly, the Republicans’ letter asserts, “We are not aware of any administration – Republican or Democrat – that has so blatantly used its role in international tax negotiations to advance its partisan political agenda.” This actually describes the Republican lawmakers’ own behavior. Earlier this year, Congressional Republicans negotiated behind the scenes with the authoritarian Hungarian government to try to kill implementation of the global minimum tax in the EU. While the tactic ultimately failed, it did present a serious hurdle to the agreement, as the EU’s rules require all member countries to consent to any tax agreement.
Contrary to Republican claims that the GLoBE rules are anti-competitive, or that the US is being bullied into accepting some agreement that will hurt the country, the plan was negotiated by our own diplomats to make the international system work for all Americans rather than for the shareholders who are concentrated among our richest one percent and among foreign investors. Multinational corporations should not be able to skirt their taxes by “earning” all their money in a post office box while American workers dutifully pay their taxes every paycheck. The governments of the United States and Europe should stop using tiny British territories as pawns to allow corporations to avoid contributing to fund schools, roads, and public safety. Moving forward with implementation will make the United States economy stronger and more competitive, not less.
National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and Vice President JD Vance celebrated as a residential building "collapsed" following a U.S. strike.
Along with raising alarm about a massive national security breach—and questions about the competence of top officials in the Trump administration who "inadvertently" added a journalist to a Signal group chat about plans to bomb targets in Yemen—the incident that Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg publicized this week included an apparent "confession" of at least one alleged war crime.
As
Common Dreams reported Wednesday, Goldberg released the entirety of the group chat that was held via the commercial messaging app Signal, following denials by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that any classified information was transmitted in the discussion.
In addition to making clear the detailed plans for attacks on Houthi targets in Yemen using F-18s and drones, the conversation included a brief message from National Security Adviser Michael Waltz in which he appeared to casually describe a strike on a civilian target in Sanaa.
Waltz first praised Hegseth, Central Command leader Gen. Michael Kurilla, and the intelligence community for an "amazing job," saying a "building collapsed" after U.S. intelligence identified a Houthi leader who was targeted for a strike.
He then clarified his message for Vice President JD Vance: "Their first target—their top missile guy—we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend's building and it's now collapsed," wrote Waltz.
The vice president replied, "Excellent."
The messages Goldberg disclosed to the public were sent over several days after he received a connection request from "Michael Waltz" via the Signal app. The conversation took place around the Trump administration's March 15 bombing of Yemen, which was carried out after the Houthis renewed a blockade on Israeli ships.
At least 31 civilians were killed in the bombing campaign, and the Houthi media office reported at the time that the U.S. had struck a "residential neighborhood" in Sanaa.
On Wednesday, journalist and author Kim Zetter said Waltz's message suggested top administration officials knew U.S. forces had "targeted [a] residential building," despite President Donald Trump's claims to the contrary.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said the messages contain "prima facie evidence of at least one war crime applauded by the people who conspired to commit it."
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the organization, recalled the warning of Foundation for Middle East Peace president Lara Friedman in September 2024 regarding the Biden administration's support for Israel's "rules of war" in Gaza—where "every human being" has been defined "as a legitimate military target—a terrorist, a terrorist supporter or sympathizer, or a 'human shield'... allowing the annihilation of huge numbers of civilians and destruction of entire cities."
"The costs of these new rules of war will be paid with the blood of civilians worldwide for generations to come, and the U.S. responsibility for enabling, defending, and normalizing these new rules—and their horrific, dehumanizing consequences—will not be forgotten,"
said Friedman at the time.
Duss
said Wednesday that "rules of engagement that permit destroying an entire civilian apartment building to kill one alleged terrorist is part of [former President] Joe Biden's legacy."
"It's still a war crime though," he added, "and Waltz's text is a confession."
"Today, seven members of the Supreme Court followed the law and did not capitulate to special interests like the NRA, and our streets will be safer for it," said one Democratic senator.
In what one gun control group hailed as "a BIG win for public safety," the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Biden-era rule regulating ghost guns, which can be made using 3D printers, obtained without background checks, and smuggled into high-security locations.
The high court ruled 7-2—with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting—in Bondi v. Vanderstock that ghost guns, which are virtually untraceable, are firearms subject to regulation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
NEW: The Supreme Court just upheld ATF’s critical ghost gun rule 👏👏👏 They ruled that ghost gun kits are legally firearms, meaning they must have serial numbers and can only be sold by licensed sellers after a background check. This is a BIG win for public safety.
[image or embed]
— GIFFORDS ( @giffords.org) March 26, 2025 at 7:57 AM
In 2022, the Biden administration enacted rules including a licensing requirement for companies making and selling ghost gun parts, mandating serial numbers for such components, and subjecting buyers to background checks. Ghost gun component manufacturers and Second Amendment advocates sued the government, claiming that ghost guns are not firearms as defined by the landmark Gun Control Act of 1968.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs in a 2023 decision striking down the ATF ghost gun rules.
However, while conceding that some ghost gun kits may not qualify as firearms under the law, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that others "'contain all components necessary' for 'a complete pistol' and can be completed in perhaps half an hour using commonly available tools."
"But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious," Gorsuch added. "Really, the kit's name says it all: 'Buy Build Shoot.'"
Today's decision is a pretty major smackdown for the 5th Circuit, which angrily rejected the ghost gun regulations as an egregiously unlawful assault on the rights of at-home gunsmiths. Gorsuch's opinion says the 5th Circuit badly misapplied the law in a number of ways. When you've lost Gorsuch...
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 7:16 AM
Responding to the ruling, David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at the Giffords Law Center, said: "Ghost guns are the gun industry's way of skirting commonsense gun laws and arming dangerous people without background checks. We are thrilled that the Supreme Court has upheld the ATF rule that treats ghost guns as what they are: guns."
"We've seen how the rise in ghost guns has contributed to increases in crime and gun deaths in communities across the United States," Pucino added. "The Supreme Court's ruling is a huge win for public safety."
The legal division of Everytown for Gun Safety also hailed what it called the court's "lifesaving decision."
"We applaud the Supreme Court for doing the right thing by upholding a lawful and critical rule that protects public safety, and by rejecting the gun lobby's extreme legal agenda," Everytown Law executive director Eric Tirschwell said. "The ATF ghost gun rule has broad support from state and federal law enforcement, who have all affirmed it is crucial to keeping our communities safe—and data shows it is reducing the number of ghost guns recovered at crime scenes nationwide. We look forward to seeing this downward trend continue."
As Everytown noted, "early data indicates a drop in ghost gun recoveries at crime scenes since the ATF's rule went into effect," and "New York City, Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Oakland, and other cities reported declines in ghost gun recoveries" in 2023.
Great news coming out of the Supreme Court! In a 7-2 decision, Justices have upheld the ban on ghost guns. These untraceable weapons have no legitimate use and are the perfect firearms for use in crime. This is a victory for public safety!
— Team ENOUGH ( @teamenough.org) March 26, 2025 at 7:16 AM
"At 17, my son, Guy, was badly wounded when he was shot with a ghost gun by a minor too young to legally purchase a pistol. No one should have to go through the trauma of learning that your child has been shot and may not survive," Denise Wieck, a volunteer with the gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action, said following Wednesday's ruling.
"Though Guy suffers the consequences of the gunshot wound to this day—including an epilepsy diagnosis, anxiety, and the loss of an eye—we have both turned our grief into power through education and advocacy," Wieck added. "We are deeply relieved by today's ruling, which will help ensure that a tragedy like ours never happens again."
Democratic lawmakers also welcomed Wednesday's ruling.
"Ghost guns have been a terror on our streets, haunting our communities, and taking lives," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "For years, I have been warning of the dangers of these untraceable guns, and I strongly supported the Biden administration's rule to crack down on these treacherous kits."
"Today, seven members of the Supreme Court followed the law and did not capitulate to special interests like the NRA, and our streets will be safer for it," Schumer added, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Senate Democrats will continue to push Republicans to take commonsense actions to keep ghost guns off the streets."
"Immigrants are not the enemy, we are part of the worker movement towards justice which includes fair wages, healthcare, education, housing, and solidarity," said one social justice group.
The Trump administration sparked a fresh wave of fury over its deportation agenda with the Tuesday detentions of Tufts University Ph.D. student Rumeysa Ozturk in Massachusetts and Alfredo "Lelo" Juarez Zeferino, a farmworker activist in Washington state.
The Boston Globe reported that Ozturk, a Turkish national, is a "student at the Tufts's doctoral program for Child Study and Human Development, according to her LinkedIn, and graduated with a master's degree from the Teachers College at Columbia University."
The Fulbright Scholar is one of several foreign academics—including multiple from Columbia in New York—targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after speaking out about the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
According to the Globe:
Ozturk does not appear to be a leading figure of the Pro-Palestinian protest movement at Tufts. But according to Ozturk's attorney, the student's photo and other identifying information were recently posted on Canary Mission, a website that documents individuals and organizations it considers to be antisemitic. Pro-Palestinian protesters say the site has doxxed and targeted them.
In March 2024, Ozturk co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts Daily, the university's student paper, criticizing the university's response to the pro-Palestinian movement and efforts by members of the student body to sever its ties to Israel.
"In a statement provided through her attorney, community activists said that Ozturk was 'ambushed' by ICE agents on the way to an Iftar dinner with friends after leaving her apartment," the newspaper noted. "Neighbors reported that unmarked cars had allegedly been surveilling the location for two days before apprehending her on the street."
Responding to reporting on social media, the group RootsAction
said: "Another pro-Palestine student kidnapped off the streets and disappeared by the Feds. Rumeysa Ozturk was abducted last night by ICE after leaving her apartment to go to Iftar dinner."
Jonathan Cohn, political director for the organization Progressive Mass,
declared that "the Trump administration's ICE goons are acting like kidnappers because that's what they are."
Authorities faced similar backlash for their actions toward Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who last year helped lead protests and finished his graduate studies at Columbia. When Khalil's family released a video of his arrest earlier this month, his wife, Noor Abdalla, said, "This felt like a kidnapping because it was: Officers in plain clothes—who refused to show us a warrant, speak with our attorney, or even tell us their names—forced my husband into an unmarked car and took him away from me."
Not long after Khalil's detention, masked agents "abducted" Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. One of Suri's attorneys called his case "emblematic of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to suppress voices—citizens and noncitizens alike—who dare to speak out against governmental policies."
An unverified video that appears to show Ozturk being taken into custody circulated on social media Wednesday.
Turkish PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk was detained by masked U.S. ICE agents yesterday while heading to an Iftar dinner in Massachusetts.
Ozturk, who held a valid F-1 visa and studied at Tufts University, was reportedly being watched for two days before her arrest.
She was on the… pic.twitter.com/eL92GyKE3J
— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 26, 2025
In a Tuesday email that did not name Ozturk, Tufts' president Sunil Kumar said: "We received reports that an international graduate student was taken into custody this evening by federal authorities outside an off-campus apartment building in Somerville. The university had no pre-knowledge of this incident and did not share any information with federal authorities prior to the event."
"From what we have been told subsequently, the student's visa has been terminated," Kumar continued. "We realize that tonight's news will be distressing to some members of our community, particularly the members of our international community. We will continue to provide information, support, and resources in the days ahead as more details become available to us."
Supporters of Ozturk are planning a rally in Powder House Square Park at 5:30 pm Eastern on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Juarez "was detained violently by ICE," according to a Tuesday Facebook post from the social justice group Community to Community Development. "He was on his way to drop off his partner at her workplace, and ICE agents broke his car window when he tried to exercise his rights."
"We feel this is a targeted attack on farmworker leadership, and we must not allow this to continue," the group said, urging supporters to contact elected officials in Washington to demand his release. "Lelo's leadership and activism and leadership have been vital in protecting farmworkers and immigrants' rights and well-being."
"As unions, community organizations, student groups, and people who have decency, We Demand That ICE stays out of Washington and let workers be at peace," the group added. "Immigrants are not the enemy, we are part of the worker movement towards justice which includes fair wages, healthcare, education, housing, and solidarity."
The group's founder, Rosalinda Guillen, told The Seattle Times that Juarez, a 25-year-old berry picker and member of the Indigenous Mexican Mixteco community, has organized on behalf of farmworker rights in the state since he was just 14.
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) 3000 said in a statement that "we're furious over these credible reports of immigration enforcement violently detaining Alfredo 'Lelo' Juarez Zeferino, a longtime labor leader who fought for farmworkers and immigrant rights and who helped expose the existence of the very same unmarked ICE facility in Ferndale where he was reportedly held this afternoon."
"In response, our union members grabbed bullhorns and traveled directly to the facility to protest this injustice. We will continue to show up to worker-led actions as long as it takes," the union added. "By targeting workers like Lelo—and, reportedly, a union lab tech at the University of Washington—the Trump administration clearly aims to terrorize immigrant workers no matter how they came to this country. We will not stand for it."