Rep. Ayanna Pressley is facing mounting backlash after making a claim that many critics say perfectly encapsulates the hypocrisy of today’s far-left politicians.

“Eviction is an act of violence,” Pressley declared in a video posted to social media Thursday. “And we have to do everything to prevent it.”

“It degrades the health of communities. There is great stigma associated with it,” she continued. “Housing is a human right.”

That rhetoric might resonate with progressive activists—but it’s colliding head-on with reality.

Pressley, a prominent member of the so-called “Squad,” has spent years pushing aggressive rent cancellation policies and eviction moratoriums, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This week, she doubled down, introducing legislation that would block evictions from appearing on credit reports while funneling taxpayer dollars into legal aid for tenants.

But critics say there’s one glaring problem: while Pressley rails against landlords, she appears to be benefiting from one.

According to her 2024 financial disclosure, Pressley and her husband hold up to $8 million in assets tied to four Massachusetts rental properties. Her spouse reportedly brought in as much as $350,000 in rental income and property sales—hardly the picture of someone opposed to the landlord-tenant system she now condemns.

That disconnect didn’t go unnoticed.

“Great. When can I move into your house for free?” journalist Brad Polumbo quipped in response to Pressley’s comments.

“The only violence in this statement is what Ayanna Pressley is doing to the meaning of words and the English language,” conservative commentator Steve Guest added.

In response to the criticism, a spokesperson for Pressley defended her stance, saying, “Evictions are destabilizing life events with devastating consequences for the physical, financial, and mental wellbeing of those being evicted, who are disproportionately women and families with young children.”

But for many Americans—especially those who believe in personal responsibility, property rights, and free markets—the explanation rings hollow.

After all, eviction is a legal process rooted in contracts. When tenants fail to pay rent, landlords—many of whom are middle-class Americans themselves—still have mortgages, taxes, and maintenance costs to cover. Labeling that process “violence,” critics argue, isn’t just misleading—it’s dangerous.

And the controversy doesn’t stop there.

Pressley has already drawn scrutiny for inflammatory rhetoric in the past, including comparing agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the Ku Klux Klan.

“In the same way that the KKK cannot be reformed, another — you know, masked militia group — I do not believe that ICE can be reformed and that this has anything to do with training and protocols,” Pressley said in a previous interview.

For conservatives and many supporters of former President Donald Trump, the pattern is clear: radical rhetoric, sweeping government overreach, and policies that often contradict the personal financial interests of the politicians pushing them.

In their view, Pressley’s latest comments are just the latest example of a political class that plays by one set of rules in public—and another behind closed doors.

Every politician eventually runs out of other people’s money to spend. Blue state governors and legislators are just running out faster than the rest.

Right now, there is a coordinated wave of new tax proposals sweeping California, New York, Washington state, Massachusetts, Michigan and Connecticut. The common thread? They all believe the solution to self-inflicted budget crises is to reach deeper into the pockets of their most productive residents. And if those residents decide to leave, they want to charge them an exit tax on the way out. What? Is this America?

Let that sink in. An exit tax. As in, we know you’re leaving because of our lousy tax structure, and we want the door to hit you on the way out.

The proposals on the table right now

California’s Billionaire Tax Act is the crown jewel of this movement. The ballot measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the total net worth of anyone worth more than $1 billion residing in the state. Not their income. Their net worth. Think about what that means for a founder whose entire net worth is locked up in a private company that employs thousands of people.  And think about how many millionaires they made themselves building that company.  You could have $2 million in liquid assets, and a $100 billion paper valuation and California would hand you a $5 billion tax bill. That’s not a tax policy. That’s an asset seizure dressed up as fairness.

Washington state, which has never had an income tax in its history just passed a 9.9% tax on incomes over $1 million. The moment that bill cleared the legislature, Starbucks founder Howard Schultz announced he was moving to Florida. Shocker. Starbucks’ own headquarters announced it’s moving to Tennessee. Shocker. When the founder and the company both leave at the same time, that’s not a coincidence. That’s a message we hear in a resounding fashion from high tax high spend states.

Michigan wants to amend its state constitution to impose a 9.25% top rate on incomes over $500,000. For residents of Detroit, the combined state and local rate would approach nearly 12%. Meanwhile, across the border in Ohio, the flat income tax rate is 2.75%. In Indiana, it’s 2.95%. You don’t need to be a certified financial planner to do that math. You just need a moving truck.

I want to be clear about something. I’m not here to defend billionaires. I’m here to defend economic reality.

The top 1% of California taxpayers currently supplies nearly half of all income tax collections in the state. Half. That’s not a sustainable revenue model. That’s a house of cards. And the moment those top earners which are not just the billionaires, but when the $500,000-a-year business owners, the startup investors, the executives start relocating, the math collapses for everyone else who stays behind.

This has already started. Six of California’s 214 billionaires left before the proposed January 1, 2026, residency cutoff. Those six people alone took $27 billion in potential tax revenue with them. Google co-founder Larry Page dropped $170 million on a Miami estate and moved his family office out of California. David Sacks who lived 30 years in the state packed up for Texas and called the proposed tax what it really is which is an asset seizure.

Here’s what I’ve learned in over thirty years as a financial advisor. Wealthy people don’t wait for the bill to arrive. They plan years in advance. The exits happening today were decided in law offices and financial planning meetings 18 months ago. The exits that haven’t happened yet are being decided right now.

Why this should matter to you even if you’re not a billionaire

Here’s where this stops being an abstract policy debate and starts affecting your daily life.

When high earners leave a state, the remaining tax base must pick up the tab. Services get cut. Or taxes get raised on the next rung of earners which are the people making $150,000, then $100,000, then lower. California, New York, and Michigan didn’t build world-class universities, hospitals, and infrastructure by accident. They built them on the backs of a thriving private economy. Dismantle the engine, and eventually the whole train stops.

There’s also a broader economic signal being sent here. When Washington state is no longer a zero-income-tax state, when California makes it financially dangerous to be a successful founder,  and when Michigan punishes its highest earners at nearly 12 cents on the dollar innovation, capital, and job creation go somewhere else. And somewhere else, right now, is Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and Nevada.

What you should do right now

If you live in one of these states and you have built meaningful wealth including a business, a portfolio, a real estate holding, or a qualified retirement account this is not a news story to skim and forget. This is a planning conversation to have with your financial advisor and your estate planning attorney. Several of these proposals include exit taxes on residents who leave within five years of implementation. The window to plan proactively is now. Not after the ballot measure passes. Not after the bill is signed. Now.

Wealthy people are not a fixed resource. They are mobile, they are organized, and they have options.

And right now, those options are looking a lot like the Sunshine State instead of the Golden State.

In a striking reminder that America is no longer turning a blind eye to those who openly side with its enemies, federal authorities have arrested the niece of Iranian terror mastermind Qasem Soleimani — a woman who, despite enjoying the freedoms and luxuries of life in the United States, allegedly used her platform to promote anti-American propaganda and glorify a regime responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members.

Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, 47, and her 25-year-old daughter, Sarinasadat Hosseiny, were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the Los Angeles area over the weekend. Both now face removal from the United States — permanently.

The arrests were confirmed Saturday by the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, underscoring a renewed commitment to putting American security first.

According to officials, Afshar didn’t just quietly reside in the U.S. — she actively praised Iran’s regime while living a life of comfort in Southern California. Authorities say she promoted Iranian propaganda, celebrated attacks on American troops, backed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — a designated terrorist organization — and repeatedly referred to the United States as the “Great Satan.”

All of this, while flaunting a lavish Los Angeles lifestyle on social media.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the administration’s position crystal clear:

“This week, I terminated both Afshar and her daughter’s legal status and they are now in ICE custody, pending removal from the United States,” Rubio announced.

“The Trump Administration will not allow our country to become a home for foreign nationals who support anti-American terrorist regimes.”

Afshar’s husband has also been barred from entering the country.

The case has drawn sharp attention not only because of Afshar’s ties to one of the most notorious figures in modern terrorism, but also because of the glaring contradiction between her rhetoric and her reality.

While publicly praising a radical Islamic regime that imposes strict dress codes and severe limitations on women, Afshar and her daughter appeared to embrace a completely different lifestyle in the United States.

Photos obtained before their social media accounts were deleted show Afshar dressed in fashionable Western clothing, posing at shooting ranges with firearms, and living freely in ways that would be forbidden under the very regime she supported.

Her daughter’s online presence told a similar story — one of luxury, designer fashion, and the kind of personal freedom unavailable to women in Iran.

Yet despite benefiting from the very liberties they criticized, both women were granted asylum and later green cards during the Biden administration.

According to Homeland Security, Afshar entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2015, received asylum in 2019, and was granted permanent residency in 2021. Her daughter followed a similar path.

But officials say those asylum claims now appear deeply questionable.

Afshar reportedly traveled back to Iran at least four times — a move that directly contradicts claims of fearing persecution. Authorities say those trips strongly suggest her asylum case was fraudulent.

“It is a privilege to be granted a green card to live in the United States of America,” a DHS spokesperson said. “If we have reason to believe a green card holder poses a threat to the U.S., the green card will be revoked.”

That’s exactly what happened here.

In a telling scene, Afshar was reportedly seen scrambling outside her Los Angeles-area home, stuffing luxury handbags into her Tesla just hours after news of her arrest broke — a stark image of someone who had grown comfortable in a country she publicly condemned.

Her daughter was arrested separately while driving near her Hollywood home.

The case also serves as a reminder of President Donald Trump’s decisive actions against Iranian terrorism. In January 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that eliminated Qasem Soleimani — a man widely blamed for orchestrating deadly attacks against American troops in the Middle East.

Trump has long referred to Soleimani as the “father of the roadside bomb,” responsible for killing and maiming countless U.S. service members.

Now, years later, his administration is continuing that hardline stance — not just overseas, but at home.

The removal of Afshar and her daughter marks the second high-profile deportation tied to Iranian regime connections in recent days, signaling a broader crackdown on individuals who exploit America’s generosity while undermining its security.

For many Americans, the message is simple: citizenship and residency in the United States are privileges — not entitlements — and those who abuse them while siding with America’s enemies will no longer be allowed to stay.