The Everywhere Insiders 7: U.S. Tax Bill, Ukraine Crisis, and Haiti’s Collapse

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/12

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee. The U.S. House narrowly passed a Trump-aligned tax and spending bill, sparking controversy over its $4–5 trillion impact on the deficit, Medicaid cuts, and tax breaks skewed toward the wealthy. It includes expanded deportation funding and reduced safety nets. Simultaneously, Ukraine suffered its largest aerial assault amid withheld U.S. military aid. In Haiti, gangs control Port-au-Prince as U.S. policy shifts to block refugees. The international response remains limited, while local capacity crumbles under worsening humanitarian crises. This interview was conducted on July 1, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All the sources here are Reuters, AP News, and the United Nations. So, straight from the downtown streets of Luxembourg City, we’re going to talk about the U.S. House of Representatives passing a Trump-aligned tax and spending reconciliation bill. House Republicans pushed it through by a narrow margin on July 4. How thin was the margin?

Irina Tsukerman: The final vote count was 219 to 213—a six-vote margin.

Jacobsen: That’s a narrow margin, all things considered. However, several members were absent so that the full count may have been slightly different.

Jacobsen: What was the reaction from the Democrats?

Tsukerman: It was pretty controversial. Essentially, Republican leadership managed to suppress dissent within their ranks. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, was the only Republican to vote with all Democrats against the procedural motion that brought the bill to the floor. Once it was on the floor, the Republicans had the votes to pass it. There is now an outcry over the fact that the bill would increase federal spending and the deficit.

Jacobsen: What else was going on at the same time?

Tsukerman: This happened as USAID underwent a significant reduction in scope, with some of its functions reassigned or defunded. A large portion of the freed-up funds is being redirected to finance tax cuts. Some middle-class groups are pleased, as it means less money will be taken from their pensions and salaries.

Jacobsen: What are the long-term effects?

Tsukerman: Many of these tax cuts are expected to fuel inflation. Combined with the increased spending and the ambiguity in parts of the legislation—it being a large bill pushed through quickly—many people are unsure of what exactly is in it. It is a complex piece of legislation, reportedly comprising 887 pages.

Jacobsen: Any highlights?

Tsukerman: Some notable provisions include increased funding for national defence and immigration enforcement, including deportations. Tax cuts are prioritized. According to Republican lawmakers, if this bill were not passed, many of the 2017 Trump-era tax cuts would begin expiring after December. This bill includes about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

The legislation would make the existing tax rates and brackets permanent. It would also temporarily introduce several new tax breaks promoted by Trump, such as exempting federal income tax on tips and overtime pay, and implementing new deductions, including interest on certain car loans and a $6,000 deduction for older adults earning up to $75,000 annually. It also raises the child tax credit to $2,000 per child, with the full credit extended to many lower-income families.

Jacobsen: There’s also something in the U.S. called SALT, which stands for State and Local Tax deduction. It refers to the cap on the amount of state and local taxes that individuals can deduct on their federal returns. Under the new proposal, the cap would quadruple to $40,000 for a period of five years. This provision is particularly relevant in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey, and California. The House initially proposed that the increase last for ten years. Still, the final deal was a last-minute, eleventh-hour compromise.

Tsukerman: There are also various business-related tax cuts, including allowing companies to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research and development investments. The wealthiest households would see an average tax benefit of $24,000 per year. At the same time, the poorest groups would face an annual net cost of around $1,600 due to the combined effects of reduced assistance and regressive tax provisions.

Middle-income taxpayers would see modest relief, estimated between $500 $1,500 annually. While that might seem minor, these cuts have significant cumulative effects on the federal deficit. The individual benefit is small, but the overall budget impact is substantial.

Jacobsen: What’s in the bill regarding immigration and border policy?

Tsukerman: The bill allocates $350 billion for border and national security priorities. This includes $46 billion for operations along the U.S.-Mexico border and $45 billion to fund 100,000 migrant detention beds. This is part of Trump’s ongoing effort to carry out what he has described as the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history.

The funding would also cover the hiring of 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, each receiving a $10,000 signing bonus. There would also be a surge in hiring for Border Patrol agents. The administration’s stated goal is to deport up to one million people per year.

Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security would receive a $10 billion grant fund to support states participating in federal immigration enforcement operations. Immigrants would face new fees, including added costs when applying for asylum protection, making the asylum process more financially burdensome.

Jacobsen: And on the defence front?

Tsukerman: Defence spending includes funding for shipbuilding, munitions systems, and quality-of-life improvements for service members. Notably, $25 billion is allocated to the Golden Dawn missile defence system. In a surprising twist, the Department of Defence would also receive $1 billion specifically for border security, effectively formalizing the military’s involvement in border operations, at least during the current administration.

Much of the funding comes from cuts to Medicaid and other domestic assistance programs, including food aid for low-income individuals. These reallocations are central to the bill’s fiscal strategy and have drawn significant criticism from policy analysts and advocacy groups.

They’re essentially trying to cut down safety net programs, including those that support pregnant women, people with disabilities, and children. There is also a stated effort to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse.

The bill includes an 80-hour-per-month work requirement for adults receiving Medicaid and SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), including individuals up to age 65. Even parents of children aged 14 and older would have to meet these work requirements. There’s also a proposal to introduce co-payments for Medicaid patients—Medicaid being the U.S. government’s public health insurance program for low-income Americans.

Currently, over 71 million people in the U.S. are enrolled in Medicaid, which was significantly expanded under the Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration. According to policy analysts, if the bill passes in full and is implemented as written, an estimated 11.8 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034. Additionally, around 3 million people could become ineligible for SNAP benefits.

Yes, and unpacking all the provisions will take time. The bill spans 887 pages, and those are just some of the significant elements being debated and drawing public backlash. Many advocacy groups are outraged, especially over cuts to women’s health care and benefits for vulnerable populations. Republicans argue that the current social programs are too expensive and that individuals who could work are receiving benefits that could be better allocated elsewhere. They see it as a matter of accountability and efficiency.

Jacobsen: But the bill has passed?

Tsukerman: Yes, it passed. The national deficit is projected to grow significantly as a result. While individual or family-level benefits—especially for middle-income earners—are small, the overall government spending is massive. This imbalance is why figures like Elon Musk and others in his camp have been vocal in their opposition to this measure.

The cost of the bill, in terms of federal spending, outweighs the personal financial gains it offers. Even if one supports boosting middle-class income, the benefits are so minimal compared to the overall expenditure that many question whether the structure is justifiable.

Jacobsen: And now some international news—Russia? Russia launched the largest missile and drone barrage on Kyiv since the start of the full-scale invasion. I recall visiting Ukraine during a previous strike, which at the time was considered massive; however, this one exceeded that by about 40%.

In just one hour, Russia launched 550 drones and missiles across Ukraine in what has been called the largest aerial assault in the world to date. The capital, Kyiv, was the primary target. Was this linked to U.S. actions?

Tsukerman: Yes. This is not a coincidence. It followed the Pentagon’s decision to withhold advanced weapons systems from Ukraine, including the Patriot missile defence systems. These would have significantly improved Ukraine’s air defence capabilities.

Congress had already allocated $4 billion to Ukraine, which was to include some Patriot systems. Ukraine even offered to purchase the systems at full cost. However, the Trump administration has refused to release them.

The batteries are currently stockpiled in Poland and were supposed to be transferred to Ukraine. But they were frozen—without warning—by the U.S. Secretary of Defence. Shockingly, this decision was made without coordination with President Trump, Congress, NATO, or even U.S. allies.

No coordination at all. Even the NATO Secretary-General was left out of the loop. Not only did the U.S. fail to fulfill its legal obligations under congressional appropriation, but it also failed to hold a coordinating meeting or offer any short-term alternative to Ukraine.

When asked, a Pentagon spokesperson claimed the U.S. is not obligated to provide weapons globally. However, suppose Congress designates funding for specific foreign assistance, such as military aid. In that case, the executive branch is legally required to follow through. It’s not just a policy issue; it’s a constitutional one.

The result? Putin is likely gloating. Russian media is celebrating. Ukraine is left under-equipped during the most aggressive aerial assault in the war so far.

Jacobsen: Ukraine is under a barrage of attacks, and the latest strike on Kyiv is not the first of its kind. In the past few days, there have also been multiple attacks on other cities across Ukraine.

Tsukerman: Trump claims to be surprised by Putin’s aggression, yet he has done nothing substantial in response. He still has not implemented the new sanctions he promised to review over two months ago—a process that was initially expected to take just two weeks. While he did renew some of the banking sanctions imposed initially under the Biden administration, these are not new measures; they maintain existing restrictions.

Moreover, Trump’s apparent tacit approval of Texas Governor Abbott’s unilateral freeze on U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine is being interpreted as a green light by Russia to escalate its military operations. And that is precisely what happened.

Today alone, over 500 drone and missile attacks were launched on Kyiv. Images from the ground show fires raging across civilian areas. This is a deliberate assault on civilian infrastructure, not just military targets. It has severely strained Ukraine’s air defence capabilities.

Without the additional Patriot missile systems previously authorized by Congress but now withheld, more civilians are at risk of death and suffering. This failure to deliver defence support—and to coordinate with allies—has real, devastating consequences.

Jacobsen: Shifting to the Western Hemisphere—what is happening in Haiti? Haitian gangs have seized control of large parts of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Violence and lawlessness are worsening. According to United Nations experts, 1.3 million people have been displaced. That figure puts Haiti’s crisis on par with major global conflict zones.

Tsukerman: Haiti has long struggled with political instability and has faced numerous failed international interventions. The current trajectory is deteriorating rapidly. The Trump administration has been granted authority to resume deportations of Haitian refugees, and that is precisely what is happening now. These individuals are being expelled without protections or special status.

During past election cycles, there were wild claims—like Haitian refugees supposedly eating cats and dogs in places like Ohio—none of which were ever substantiated. Those narratives disappeared after the election, but the legal hardships for Haitian asylum seekers have persisted.

The U.S. has effectively disengaged from Haiti. Kenya has deployed a limited number of forces. Still, they are severely underprepared for the scale of chaos on the ground. Haitian law enforcement and government officials are essentially in retreat.

Other nations have offered assistance, including El Salvador, which has experience in dealing with gang violence. While El Salvador has been relatively effective in restoring internal control within its borders, it remains unclear how much support it can offer Haiti, given its domestic challenges.

Therefore, they cannot single-handedly bring everything to a halt. It would take a very significant force to subdue all of these gangs and secure the country from the rampaging groups that are essentially driving people out and looting everything within. I do not see the U.S. intervening decisively at this point.

The U.S. response appears to be focused on shielding itself from the fallout by essentially blocking entry from Haiti. Haiti may now be among the countries affected by an extended travel ban that’s being enforced due to the worsening security situation. That includes not just regular migrants but also people fleeing what are effectively war-like conditions.

I also do not see any serious multinational task forces being deployed in the Caribbean. Latin American nations, which might be best positioned politically to engage, are either too under-resourced—like Venezuela—or not considered reliable or neutral enough to lead such an operation.

To conclude, there is a shortage of private security forces or mercenaries that might intervene. I do not think Haitians have the internal resources to solve this themselves, and outside help does not appear to be materializing.

Jacobsen: That was wonderful. I’ll see you next week.

Tsukerman: Thank you. Have a great rest of your trip.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.