MAGA's Epstein gaslighting is unsustainable

To believe anything Trump's MAGA defenders say requires a complete suspension of common sense.

Justin Glawe

Home of the Brave paid for this billboard in Times Square earlier this month. (Adam Gray/Getty)

After months of pushing conflicting and nonsensical talking points about the release of the Epstein files, Donald Trump is running out of time on his administration’s failing coverup of his longtime friendship with one of the world’s most notorious sex traffickers.

Trump, the White House, and congressional Republicans have spent nearly the entire first year of the president’s second term pushing an ever-expanding number of contradictory narratives about not just what’s in the files, but why Democrats and even staunch conservatives like Rep. Thomas Massie have been demanding their release.

There’s a very simple reason for this: Trump and Republicans have no idea how to cover for a president who is clearly all over the files.

The White House and congressional Republicans have argued that if the Epstein files contain highly damaging information about Trump, former president Joe Biden would have released them while he was in office. Simultaneously, Republicans are arguing that Democrats are behind the push to release the Epstein files because they will be bad for Trump.

“If they had anything, they would’ve used it before the election,” Trump told reporters on November 14, before suggesting Democrats doctored the files. “I can’t tell you what they have put in since the election.”

Meanwhile, Democrats are “trying to manufacture some sort of hoax that the president had something to do with Epstein,” House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed the same day.

The Epstein files are all a “hoax,” Trump has said — a lie made up by Democrats to make him look bad. Yet somehow, at the same time, there’s nothing in the files that could make him look bad — because if there was, Biden would have released them.

So which is it? The White House and congressional Republicans can’t say. That’s because it’s difficult to cover up Trump’s ties to Epstein when they are so widely known and obviously incriminating.

Dig a little deeper into Republican talking points about the Epstein files and it gets even more confusing. When asked on November 13 by CNN’s John Berman why Trump won’t simply release the files, Rep. Pete Sessions claimed the president is just doing the same thing as Obama and Biden before him: not releasing context-free materials about those in Epstein’s orbit en masse.

“To simply take things that are emails and accusations that people make is not a legitimate way for us to approach this,” Sessions said following the release of emails by House Democrats showing even more ties between Trump and Epstein. To hear Sessions tell it, Trump is simply following the lead of Obama and Biden, who he suggested “concluded” the files should be released in a “different way.”

"Now, they did not ever really approach it,” Sessions said of Trump’s predecessors, “and we’re trying to do that now.”

While Republicans have argued that Democrats want the files released to hurt Trump — and that if there was damaging information therein Biden would have already released them — they’ve also said the 50,000 pages of documents and emails that have already been released by congressional committees exonerate Trump.

“The evidence we’ve gathered does not implicate President Trump in any way,” Rep. James Comer claimed on October 21.

None of this has worked, forcing Republicans in Congress to pass a bill ordering the release of at least some of the Justice Department’s materials on Epstein, which Trump has signed into law.

Now, Republicans are adjusting tactics slightly, saying that even if Trump is in the files, it’s not evidence of any wrongdoing.

“I need to see evidence at trial and people being convicted,” Rep. Warren Davidson said on November 21. “I don’t really need more rage bait in terms of public documents, I want to know when are the prosecutions underway.”

These confusing and completely contradictory arguments — Biden didn’t release the files so there’s nothing bad about Trump in them, but also Democrats want them released so they can score points against Trump, and simultaneously the files will exonerate the president — are all part of an attempted coverup of what has been obvious for a long time: Trump has deep ties to Epstein and at the very least is mentioned in materials collected as part of the DOJ’s investigation.

The DOJ now has 30 days to begin releasing records related to its investigation of Epstein. Almost surely, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel will continue to run cover for Trump on the materials they’re now bound by law to release — as they have already done for months now. In fact, Bondi is already claiming that an investigation into prominent Democrats in Epstein’s orbit — an investigation Trump himself publicly demanded — prevents her from discussing anything Epstein related.

Endless contradictions

Trump's hand-made birthday greeting
for Jeffrey Epstein

The lies and conflicting narratives about the Epstein files began almost from the moment of Trump’s second inauguration. After riling up his supporters for years about Epstein — stoking the MAGA base on the campaign trail and subsequently choosing two of the biggest Epstein conspiracists, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, to lead the FBI — Trump’s line suddenly changed once he returned to the White House.

A month into the second Trump administration, Bondi told Fox News that the list of Epstein’s clients was “sitting on my desk right now.” A week later, she announced the release of the “first phase” of the Epstein files, most of which had already been made publicly available during the Biden administration.

Bondi then invited MAGA influencers to the White House to receive these materials. They dutifully showed off their binders full of already-available documents as if they had just received damning evidence on a global cabal of sex predators — before some of them took to social media to complain that the files contained nothing new. (A second “phase” of Epstein files was never released.)

Bondi and Patel subsequently claimed a “whistleblower” at the FBI field office in New York said agents there had withheld “thousands of pages of documents” related to Epstein. In a February 28 letter to Patel, Bondi ordered the FBI director to “conduct an immediate investigation” into why the files in New York were withheld from the DOJ and to file a “comprehensive report of your findings and proposed personnel action within 14 days.” There is no indication that any such report was ever filed.

In March, the FBI tasked its agents in New York with searching through an estimated 100,000 documents for references to Trump — and redacting any mention of the president. In May, Bondi reportedly informed Trump that he was in the massive trove of materials at the Justice Department. This was the point at which Trump switched gears from loudly proclaiming for years that he would release the files to attempting to dismiss them entirely.

“Are you still talking about Jeffery Epstein?” Trump asked a reporter incredulously on July 9. “Are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable.”

“I don’t understand why the Jeffery Epstein case would be of interest to anybody,” Trump said the next week. “It’s pretty boring stuff.”

Bogus transparency claims

As Trump himself tried to dismiss the Epstein files at every opportunity, his underlings at the Justice Department launched a new plan to tamp down on the growing clamor for the files: “Interview” Ghislaine Maxwell in prison and ask courts to unseal transcripts of grand jury testimony from her trial.

Deputy AG Todd Blanche conducted the interview with Maxwell, who told Blanche that she never saw the president engage in any criminal or inappropriate conduct.

“I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way,” Maxwell said, according to transcripts of her conversation with Blanche that were released by the Justice Department. “The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”

Apparently as a reward for exonerating the president, Maxwell was sent to a low-security prison in Texas where she has enjoyed perks not afforded to other inmates. At the same time, the DOJ made a slapdash attempt to feign transparency by asking courts to unseal grand jury testimony from Maxwell’s trial.

Three federal judges denied the motions. Among them was US District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer, who excoriated the DOJ for its half-hearted effort at providing the public with new information about Epstein.

The DOJ’s “entire premise — that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, or the Government’s investigation into them — is demonstrably false,” Engelmeyer wrote in a 31-page decision denying the government’s motion to unseal the transcripts of grand jury testimony. “The materials do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor. They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s. They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s.”

Engelmeyer’s denial of the motion to unseal provided a convenient — albeit temporary — talking point for the Trump administration: We tried to release more information but a judge stopped us.

After House Democrats released the trove of emails showing even more ties between Trump and Epstein than were previously known — and as it became clear that Congress would force the president and the DOJ to release the files — the Trump administration launched its latest attempt to make all of this go away.

First, Trump demanded that the DOJ investigate prominent Democrats tied to Epstein. Bondi ceded to the demand, tasking the Southern District of New York (SDNY) with launching Trump’s politically-motivated investigations based on findings the Justice Department has already said don’t warrant further investigation.

As expected, Bondi is saying that this new, ongoing investigation prevents the Justice Department from discussing Epstein matters. On November 19, Bondi was asked whether the SDNY investigation would expand beyond the prominent Democrats who Trump demanded be investigated for their ties to Epstein. She demurred.

“We’re not going to say anything else about that because it is a pending investigation,” Bondi said.

With Bondi so quick to use the “ongoing investigation” defense to avoid having to answer questions about the DOJ’s investigation into Epstein and others, it’s entirely possible that the agency could try to use the same defense to make significant redactions in releasing the files as ordered by the law passed by Congress.

Reviewing the meandering path of arguments that have been screen tested on the American people over the last 10 months reveals the desperation with which Republicans have attempted to make all this go away. First, Biden and Democrats didn’t care about the Epstein files because they implicated people like Bill Clinton. Then, those files didn’t contain anything damaging on Trump or else Biden would have released them. Now, Democrats want the files released because they do contain damaging information about Trump, but maybe that’s only the case because they tampered with them.

In July, the DOJ said no further investigations were warranted. Now, investigations into prominent Democrats based on the files are necessary. For years, Trump said the files should be released — until he found out he was in them. Then, the files became nothing but hearsay that could hurt innocent people. Now, they can’t be fully released under the ongoing investigations Trump himself demanded.

The story has become bewildering and insane. To believe anything about Epstein coming from Trump or Republicans requires a complete suspension of common sense, which is why it’s good to remember that the simplest explanation is often the correct one: Trump and Republicans are lying. Lie after desperate, confusing, and impossible lie, all aimed at an impossible goal: erasing history and the many deep and troubling ties between Epstein and Trump.

Inside Trump Cabinet meeting

Touché, Seth

988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and the BH Link triage center are here to help you

You're not alone

By Rep. Julie A. Casimiro and Katie Anderson 

Rhode Islanders deserve timely access to lifesaving, affordable, high-quality mental health and substance use services. Historically, those in crisis, unsure where else to turn, have called 911 and have sought help at hospitals where they face long wait times and, often, a hefty bill. 

Thankfully, when stress runs high this holiday season, we can turn instead to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and the BH Link triage center. Together, these programs offer phone-based and in-person alternatives to 911 and hospital systems for those needing immediate support or timely referrals. 

Anyone in crisis – kids and adults alike – can call, text, or chat 988 any time, 24/7, for free and confidential emotional support, resources, and referrals. For immediate face-to-face support, adults 18 and over, regardless of insurance, can walk into BH Link – no appointment necessary. 

Depending on their needs, help-seekers will receive an assessment and safety plan, scripts for psychiatric medications; detoxification from opioids, alcohol or benzodiazepines; or a referral or transfer for ongoing care, with medical clearance and insurance authorization, as indicated. There are no out-of-pocket expenses associated with these visits. 

Everyone seeking care is greeted warmly and responsively in a safe, relaxed setting, with minimal wait times relative to crowded emergency rooms. Both 988 & BH Link can also serve those simply interested in learning more about what outpatient resources, like therapists, may best help them or their loved ones. 

Measles outbreak reaches Connecticut

Thank you, Bobby Jr., and all you anti-vaxxers 

Stephanie Soucheray, MA

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on December 10 said the United States has 1,912 confirmed measles cases so far in 2025, an increase of 84 cases since last week and a bad sign as holiday gatherings, travel, and indoor activities is set to pick up in the final weeks of the year. 

In January 2026, the United States is at risk of losing its measles elimination status because of ongoing transmission chains from a West Texas outbreak that began early last year and sickened roughly 800 people. The country first gained elimination status in 2000. 

Eighty-eight percent of cases in the United States this year are outbreak-associated, and there have been 47 outbreaks recorded. Last year, 16 outbreaks were reported during 2024 and 69% of cases (198 of 285) were outbreak-associated.

Currently Utah, Arizona, and South Carolina are seeing large outbreaks that since Thanksgiving have pushed state totals well past 100 cases. Those outbreaks have been marked by exposures at schools and churches in communities with low vaccination levels. 

Possible plowable snow for us this weekend

Odds are 59% for an inch or more, up to 3 inches. Drive carefully

Here's the National Weather Service forecast for Charlestown:

Big drama over Big Pharma: McKee still linking Foulkes to opioid epidemic

Behind in the polls, saddled with the Washington Bridge, McKee looks for an issue he can use

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee continues to attack 2026 Democratic rival Helena Buonanno Foulkes for her personal and professional ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

The latest jab from the McKee campaign came in the midst of a Monday luncheon fundraiser for Foulkes, hosted by her uncle, former U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd.

The private luncheon for Foulkes was held at The University Club on the East Side of Providence, with tickets for attendees ranging from $500 to $2,000 — the maximum annual contribution to political candidates under state law. Dodd was listed on the event flyer as a special guest, alongside dozens of other prominent names in state politics and business circles who are backing Foulkes in the 2026 Democratic gubernatorial primary. 

A fixture in Democratic politics, Dodd represented his home state of Connecticut for two decades in the U.S. Senate, until 2011, and is the partial namesake of the famous Wall Street reform law, the “Dodd-Frank Act.” 

But McKee’s campaign offers a different descriptor of Dodd: “Purdue Pharma ally.”

And the governor’s campaign says Dodd’s involvement in a fundraiser for Foulkes is further proof of her ties to the “very insiders who enabled Purdue’s rise.”

The clearest symptom yet of Trump’s mental decline

His brain is turning into sh*t

Robert Reich

After criticizing media coverage about him aging in office, Trump appeared to be falling asleep during a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

But that’s hardly the most troubling aspect of his aging.

In the last few weeks, Trump’s insults, tantrums, and threats have exploded.

To Nancy Cordes, CBS’s White House correspondent, he said: “Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? You’re just asking questions because you’re a stupid person.”

About New York Times correspondent Katie Rogers: “third rate … ugly, both inside and out.”

To Bloomberg White House correspondent Catherine Lucey: “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.”

About Democratic lawmakers who told military members to defy illegal orders: guilty of “sedition … punishable by DEATH.”

About Somali immigrants to the United States: “Garbage” whom “we don’t want in our country.”

What to make of all this?

Trump’s press hack Karoline Leavitt tells reporters to “appreciate the frankness and the openness that you get from President Trump on a near-daily basis.”

Sorry, Ms. Leavitt. This goes way beyond frankness and openness. Trump is now saying things nobody in their right mind would say, let alone the president of the United States.

He’s losing control over what he says, descending into angry, venomous, often dangerous territory. Note how close his language is coming to violence — when he speaks of acts being punishable by death, or human beings as garbage, or someone being ugly inside and out.

The deterioration isn’t due to age alone.

I have some standing to talk about this frankly. I was born 10 days after Trump. My gray matter isn’t what it used to be, either, but I don’t say whatever comes into my head.

Trump Advent Calendar on sale now

This is NOT how numbers work.

The most you can reduce a product price is by 100%, making that produce free. To reduce a product price by 500%, the pharmacy would have to pay the consumer five times the sale price of the item. If the pills cost $10, the pharmacy would have to pay you $50. But hey, why let basic arithmetic spoil a good lie.

The next time you buy a prescription, be sure to demand your 500% discount. Tell them King Donald sent you.

Trump Wants Americans To Make More Babies

Critics Say His Policies Won’t Help Raise Them.

Stephanie Armour and Amanda Seitz

Maddy Olcott plans to start a career once she graduates from college. But the junior at the State University of New York-Purchase College is so far not planning to start a family — even with the Trump administration dangling inducements like thousand-dollar “baby bonuses” or cheaper infertility drugs.

“Our country wants us to be birthing machines, but they’re cutting what resources there already are,” said Olcott, 20. “And a $1,000 baby bonus? It’s low-key like, what, bro? That wouldn’t even cover my month’s rent.”

The Trump administration wants Americans to have more babies, and the federal government is debuting policy initiatives to reverse the falling U.S. fertility rate. In mid-October, the White House unveiled a plan to increase access to in vitro fertilization treatment. President Donald Trump has heralded such initiatives, calling himself “the fertilization president.”

Trump likes kids once they turn 14

But reproductive rights groups and other advocacy organizations say these efforts to buttress the birth rate don’t make up for broader administration priorities aimed at cutting federal programs such as Medicaid, its related Children’s Health Insurance Program, and other initiatives that support women and children. 

The pro-family focus, they say, isn’t just about boosting procreation. Instead, they say, it’s being weaponized to push a conservative agenda that threatens women’s health, reproductive rights, and labor force participation.

Some predict these efforts could deter parenthood and lead to increases in maternal mortality.

“The religious right wants more white Christian babies and is trying to curtail women’s reproductive freedom in order to achieve that aim,” said Marian Starkey, a spokesperson for Population Connection, a nonprofit that promotes population stabilization through increased access to birth control and abortion. “The real danger is the constant whittling down of reproductive rights.”

The White House did not respond to repeated interview requests.

Gas stoves are filling millions of homes with hidden toxic air

Maybe you love your gas stove but it may not love you back

Stanford University

For many people in the United States, spending time indoors does not guarantee protection from harmful air pollution. A new study led by Stanford University and published Dec. 2 in PNAS Nexus reports that gas and propane stoves release significant amounts of nitrogen dioxide. This pollutant has been associated with asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease, preterm birth, diabetes, and lung cancer. 

According to the research, switching from gas to electric stoves lowers nitrogen dioxide exposure by more than one quarter nationwide and by about half for people who use their stoves most frequently. Earlier studies documented nitrogen dioxide from gas stoves, but this work is the first to examine both indoor and outdoor exposure across the entire country.

"We know that outdoor air pollution harms our health, but we assume our indoor air is safe." said study senior author Rob Jackson, the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor in Earth System Science at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. "Our research shows that if you use a gas stove, you're often breathing as much nitrogen dioxide pollution indoors from your stove as you are from all outdoor sources combined."

Indoor pollution can be as dangerous as outdoor emissions

Outdoor air pollution contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year and leads to millions of new cases of childhood asthma worldwide. Laws such as the U.S. Clean Air Act have helped reduce outdoor pollution, but indoor air remains largely unregulated even though it can pose similar risks. This new analysis is the first nationwide evaluation of how much nitrogen dioxide people encounter from both indoor and outdoor sources, including gas stoves, vehicle traffic, and electricity generation.

Federal judge declares Trump wind memo blocking offshore wind farms to be unlawful

This is good news, but what will the Supreme Court do?

By Anastasia E. Lennon, Rhode Island Current

This story originally appeared in The New Bedford Light.

A federal judge on Monday ruled in favor of Massachusetts and more than a dozen states that sued the Trump administration in May over President Donald Trump’s day-one offshore wind memo. The directive has frozen permitting since January, pending a comprehensive review by federal agencies.

The states argued the memo is unlawful and has caused significant harm – stymieing domestic investment, jeopardizing states’ abilities to supply enough electricity, and creating an “existential threat” to the industry.

Judge Patti B. Saris seemed to agree with their legal claims: “The State Plaintiffs have produced ample evidence demonstrating that they face ongoing or imminent injuries due to the Wind Order.”

On the flip side, she delivered sharp criticism of the federal government’s arguments and the wind memo itself, writing that it fails to adequately explain or support such a significant change in course from the agencies’ prior permitting practices.

“Whatever level of explanation is required when deviating from longstanding agency practice, this is not it,” Judge Saris wrote.

We were warned this would happen

New US domestic terrorism priorities raise constitutional alarms

Melinda Haas, University of Pittsburgh

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

You’ve probably heard a lot about Donald Trump’s many executive orders. But as an international relations scholar who has studied U.S. foreign policy decision-making and national security legislation, I recognize that presidents can take several types of executive actions without legislative involvement: executive orders, memoranda and proclamations.

This structure allows the president to direct law enforcement and national security agencies, with little opportunity for congressional oversight.

This seventh national security memorandum from the Trump White House pushes the limits of presidential authority by targeting individuals and groups as potential domestic terrorists based on their beliefs rather than their actions.

The memorandum represents a profound shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that risks undermining foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

ICE Barbie wishes you a Merry Christmas. This is real - not a joke

WHOA! Donald Trump explains how healthy he is in body and mind.

Says it's "seditious" and "treasonous" not to believe he's perfect. And "thank you for your attention to this matter."

How much carbon do our coastal wetlands absorb?

URI study reveals opportunity to improve blue carbon measurements in coastal wetlands

By Mackensie duPont Crowley

A new study finds a critical limitation in a widely used method for measuring organic carbon in flooded coastal sediments, a gap that could influence global carbon storage estimates and assessments of marsh resilience. (URI Photo/Courtesy Erin Peck)

Coastal wetlands, like salt marshes, keep pace with sea-level rise by accumulating sediment and burying organic carbon in their soils, an important natural process that also helps sequester carbon. Accurately measuring this stored carbon is essential for understanding marsh resilience and informing blue carbon strategies.

But a new study led by Erin Peck, an assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography, and Serina Wittyngham, an assistant professor at the University of North Florida, identifies a fundamental limitation in a widely-used method for measuring organic carbon in flooded coastal sediments. 

This gap has implications for global estimates of carbon storage and marsh resilience. Traditional blue carbon methods assume that all measured organic matter contributes to long-term carbon storage and sediment volume. The new study shows this isn’t always the case. 

Some organic matter is dissolved in sediment porewater, while other portions adhere loosely to sediment particles or are bound within the internal structure of clay minerals. These forms of organic matter may not contribute to sediment volume, accretion, or marsh resilience.

By examining more than 23,000 tidal marsh sediment samples across multiple marsh systems, Peck, Wittyngham, and their collaborators demonstrated that this overlooked fraction of “volumeless” organic matter can lead to overestimates of both carbon storage and marsh elevation gains. Recognizing this nuance allows scientists to refine their estimates of carbon sequestration and resilience, ensuring that restoration planning, carbon accounting, and predictive modeling are based on the most accurate information possible.

The researchers’ findings were published recently in a peer-reviewed article in the journal Limnology and Oceanography Letters.

South County Habitat for Humanity receives $200,000 from Bank of America Neighborhood Builders Program

Welcome boost to addressing affordable housing shortage

Representatives from Bank of America and South County Habitat for Humanity. Photo: South County Habitat for Humanity

South County Habitat for Humanity (SCHH) has been named a 2025 Bank of America Neighborhood Builder, receiving $200,000 in unrestricted funding to support its mission of building affordable homeownership units in Washington County, Rhode Island. 

In addition to this funding, this prestigious award provides access to leadership development resources and training. SCHH joins fellow Rhode Island nonprofit Social Enterprise Greenhouse in receiving this distinguished designation.

“This year, as we celebrate the 35th anniversary of South County Habitat for Humanity, we are deeply honored to receive this incredible investment from our longtime partners at Bank of America,” said Colin Penney, Executive Director of SCHH. 

“Unrestricted support like this gives us the flexibility to strategically grow our capacity and better meet the needs of our community, ensuring every dollar advances our mission of a world where everyone has a decent place to live. With ambitious plans for larger-scale housing developments, this funding arrives at a pivotal moment. We are truly grateful for Bank of America’s partnership.”

Yes, the government can track your location – but usually not by spying on you directly

Your cell phone tells them where you are

Emilee Rader, University of Wisconsin-Madison

If you use a mobile phone with location services turned on, it is likely that data about where you live and work, where you shop for groceries, where you go to church and see your doctor, and where you traveled to over the holidays is up for sale. And U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is one of the customers.

The U.S. government doesn’t need to collect data about people’s locations itself, because your mobile phone is already doing it. While location data is sometimes collected as part of a mobile phone app’s intended use, like for navigation or to get a weather forecast, more often locations are collected invisibly in the background.

I am a privacy researcher who studies how people understand and make decisions about data that is collected about them, and I research new ways to help consumers get back some control over their privacy. Unfortunately, once you give an app or webpage permission to collect location data, you no longer have control over how the data is used and shared, including who the data is shared with or sold to.

Every time we debate taxing the rich in Rhode Island, this issue comes up

What the data shows about threats of a tax exodus by the wealthy

Cristobal Young, Cornell University

New York’s mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, campaigned on a promise to raise the city’s income tax on its richest residents from 3.9% to 5.9%. Combined with the state income tax, which is 10.9% for the top bracket, the increase would cement the city’s position as having the highest taxes on top earners in the country.

It set off a chorus of warnings about the tax flight of the city’s wealthiest residents.

Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman claimed that both the city’s businesses and wealthy residents “have already started making arrangements for the exits.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul echoed the concern, opposing the proposal “because we cannot have them leave the state.” Before the election, Mamdani’s opponent, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, joked that if Mamdani won, “even I will move to Florida.”

I research whether high earners actually move when their taxes go up. My colleagues and I have analyzed millionaire taxes in New Jersey and California, the migration of Forbes billionaires globally and decades of IRS data tracing where Americans with million-dollar incomes live.

Top earners are often thought of as “mobile millionaires” who are ever searching for lower-tax places to live. In reality, they’re often reluctant to leave the places where they built their careers and raised their families.

At the same time, there are grains of truth in the tax migration arguments, so it’s important to carefully parse the evidence.

King Donald and his Xmas wish list

It's for real.

Rep. Spears holds community meeting, December 13

 

DECEMBER 2025

You're Invited!

Saturday, December 13 1 PM – 3 PM

Please join us for a Community Conversation with State Representative Tina Spears and special guest, Speaker of the House Joe Shekarchi

Saturday, December 13 1 PM – 3 PM Cross mIlls Public Library, 4417 Old Post Road, Charlestown, RI

Tina will share updates on what she has accomplished this year and give a preview of the key issues ahead in 2026… more importantly, she and Speaker Shekarchi want to hear from YOU.   This is an opportunity to discuss the issues that matter most to our community, ask questions, and share your thoughts on priorities for the upcoming legislative session.   Your voice is essential in shaping our work—hope to see you there!   Light refreshments will be provided

If you'd like to donate to Tina's re-eelction campaign, please make personal checks payable to: The Friends of Tina Spears 82 Hillside Drive Charlestown, RI 02813   Or click HERE to contribute online or use the QR code   DONATE