The grim reality of President Donald Trump's Social Security plan
The grim reality of President Donald Trump's Social Security plan What's popular and well-intentioned isn't always what's financially best for Social Security.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
When will SSI recipients get their April 2025 checks?
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients will receive their April 2025 payment on Tuesday, April 1, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA) calendar.
unbranded - Newsworthy
For most current and future retirees, Social Security income isn't a luxury or optional. It's a source of income that most will rely on to cover their expenses as they age.
In each of the previous 23 years, national pollster Gallup has conducted surveys to gauge how reliant retirees are on the Social Security income they receive. Between 80% and 90% of respondents, including 88% last year, noted it was needed, in some capacity, to make ends meet.
Despite Social Security being foundational to the financial well-being of our nation's aging workforce, the program's own foundation is anything but sound. The financial outlook for this program is deteriorating, and the American public is counting on its elected officials, which includes President Donald Trump, to strengthen Social Security.
Unfortunately, not all solutions — even those made with good intentions by President Trump — improve Social Security's outlook.
Sweeping benefit cuts for retired workers may be just eight years away
Before digging into the specifics of President Trump's Social Security plan, it's important to understand how America's leading social program got to where it is now.
Since 1940, the Social Security Board of Trustees has released an annual report that intricately details how the program generates income and where every dollar of its outlays (i.e., benefits and, to a lesser extent, administrative expenses) is directed.
Often the more valuable aspect of these annual Trustees Reports is their forward modeling. The Trustees account for changes in fiscal and monetary policy, along with ongoing demographic shifts, to assess the financial stability of Social Security payouts 75 years into the future. This long-term forecast has been estimating a funding obligation shortfall for 40 consecutive years. In the 2024 Trustees Report, this 75-year cash shortfall clocked in at $23.2 trillion.
Although this is a big number, the scarier statistic is the expected depletion of the Old-Age and Survivor's Insurance Trust Fund's (OASI's) asset reserves by 2033. If the OASI's asset reserves run dry, retired workers and survivor beneficiaries could see their Social Security checks slashed by up to 21% in eight years.
To be as clear as possible, the OASI wouldn't be bankrupt or insolvent if its asset reserves were depleted. Rather, it would mean the existing payout schedule, including annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), isn't sustainable.
The culprit for Social Security's woes has nothing to do with social media message board myths of congressional theft or undocumented workers receiving traditional Social Security checks. Rather, it's the result of sustained demographic shifts, which includes rising income inequality, a historically low U.S. birth rate, and a 58% decline in legal net migration into the U.S. over 25 years.
President Trump's three-part Social Security plan would be popular
With a clearer understanding of the challenges facing America's leading retirement program, let's turn to President Donald Trump's three separate Social Security proposals.
While on the campaign trail, prior to his November election, Trump repeatedly promised not to touch Social Security. In other words, he pledged not to propose/enact major reforms that would potentially alter the benefits current and future retirees receive.
Though it's been documented for decades that Social Security's financial outlook is weakening, lawmakers tend to avoid this dubbed "third rail of politics." Any significant changes to Social Security would make at least some people worse off than they were before. This could cost a president and/or his party votes in an upcoming election. Doing nothing and maintaining a hands-off approach is the easiest way to avoid angering voters.
President Trump's second Social Security proposal is to make the program more efficient. In a December 2024 interview with Kristen Welker at Meet the Press, then-president-elect Trump responded to a question regarding the possibility of Social Security cuts by stating:
"I said to people we're not touching Social Security, other than we make it more efficient. But the people are going to get what they're getting."
During Donald Trump's first term in the White House, all four of his annual presidential budgets called for efficiency-based cuts to Social Security. One example would have reduced retroactive benefits to workers with disabilities to six months from 12 months. These efficiency-based cuts, which would have been recognized over 10 fiscal years (the federal government's fiscal year ends on Sept. 30), totaled between $24 billion and $72 billion in reduced outlays, based on presidential budget projections.
The third aspect of President Trump's Social Security plan involves the removal of the taxation of benefits. In a July post on social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote, "Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security." Getting rid of this tax on benefits would be extremely popular with seniors and would increase Social Security checks for around half of all retirees.
Following the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, up to 50% of benefits could be exposed to the federal tax rate if provisional income (adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half benefits) surpassed $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for couples filing jointly. In 1993, a second tax tier was added that made up to 85% of Social Security benefits applicable to federal taxation if provisional income crested $34,000 for single filers and $44,000 for jointly filing couples.
Last month, a White House correspondent confirmed with CNBC that the president is planning to fulfill his campaign promise to do away with the taxation of benefits.
The grim reality of President Trump's Social Security proposals
While there's little doubt the president's three-pronged approach to Social Security would likely keep voters happy, what's popular and well-intentioned isn't always what's financially best for Social Security. The grim reality is that none of these three proposals would meaningfully improve the program. In fact, two of the three would make things decisively worse.
For instance, doing nothing is the safe approach that most presidents and members of Congress choose. However, doing nothing fails to address the $23.2 trillion (and growing) long-term funding shortfall, and it doesn't alter the projection of the OASI exhausting its asset reserves in eight years. By kicking the can, President Trump and Congress are only making an eventual solution even costlier.
The one aspect of President Trump's Social Security plan that wouldn't make things worse is proposed efficiency-based cuts. But the caveat to efficiency-based cost-cutting is that it hardly moves the needle.
Estimates from the 2024 Trustees Report pegged the combined outlays for the OASI and Disability Insurance Trust Fund at $19.09 trillion from 2024 through 2033. Meanwhile, Trump's budget proposals during his first term would have reduced outlays by, at most, $72 billion over a decade (fiscal 2018 through fiscal 2027). Efficiency-based reductions simply don't do enough to make a dent into Social Security's short- or long-term funding issues.
But the biggest reality-check of all would be if Donald Trump eliminated the tax on benefits.
Social Security only has three sources of funding:
The 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary between $0.01 and $176,100, as of 2025.
The interest income earned on its asset reserves, which are invested in special-issue government bonds, as required by law.
The tax on benefits.
Ending the tax on benefits would remove one of the program's three sources of income. Interest income isn't guaranteed, either, with the OASI's asset reserves being whittled away.
Removing the taxation of benefits would lower estimated income by $950 billion to $1.45 trillion over a decade, based on various estimates. In other words, it would speed up the timeline to the OASI's asset reserve depletion date and potentially increase the amount benefits need to be cut for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries.
Strengthening Social Security will require some tough decisions. President Trump's Social Security plan simply doesn't cut it.
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
The $
22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
School presidents celebrate the value of faith-based higher education
WASHINGTON — Nearly 2 million students attend faith-based colleges and universities, a fast-growing segment of American higher education that now has a new tool to share its story. Over 50 college and university presidents gathered Monday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in the nation's capital and vigorously applauded after watching the first episode of a new BYUtv documentary series, 'Higher Ed: The Power of Faith-Inspired Learning in America." 'Faith-based institutions are the bedrock of American higher education, and we've not paid adequate attention to that role and to that responsibility,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. ACE launched a Commission on Faith-based Colleges and Universities last year and Monday's event drew the presidents of dozens of commission member schools, including Notre Dame, Yeshiva University and Brigham Young University. The event also drew representatives of the U.S. Department of Education, the Faith Angle Forum, the American Enterprise Institute and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, as well as reporters from The Washington Post and other media outlets. The new BYUtv documentary highlights students and presidents at three faith-based schools — Catholic University of America, Taylor University and BYU-Hawaii. 'This is a way of saying, 'Faith institutions have a contribution to make,'' said Elder Clark G. Gilbert, the commissioner of education for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Two additional episodes will be released in August and will include students from other commission schools. Those schools amount to 10% of the nation's colleges and universities and are excited to tell their stories, four presidents said during a panel discussion. Their stories need to be told even to people of faith, said Ryan Burge, the event's keynote speaker and a well-known analyst of data on faith and religion at Eastern Illinois University. Burge said it's a myth that college is a place where students lose their faith. 'College is not antithetical to religion,' he said. 'In some ways, it accelerates religion, enhances religion.' Data shows that the more educated Americans are, the more faithful they are, Burge said. He has found that the more Americans are educated and faithful, the more they flourish in numerous data sets. 'To summarize, education is good. Religion is good. Education plus religion is good,' he said. 'It causes trust. It makes us more loving of our neighbors. It increases our income. It increases all these outcomes.' In the documentary, Isabela Barboza said she decided to attend Catholic University of America because she decided that 'if religion is part of my life, it has to be part of my education and formation.' Taylor University student Hannah Wylie, whose parents attended Harvard and Brown, said she struggled before turning down her own Ivy League offer to attend the small evangelical school in Upland, Indiana. She is grateful she did. 'I wanted to be taught to think deeply about things I was doing,' she said in the documentary. 'I wanted to do things for a purpose.' Every college and university president in America is grappling with data that shows students facing a crisis of meaning in their lives. Rabbi Avi Berman, the president of Yeshiva University, took a moment of gratitude during the panel discussion because he found the documentary powerful. 'Young people are looking to university to find themselves and their values because they are not seeing answers to their deep, existential questions in the ephemeral choices being offered them in other institutions,' he said. Lipscomb University President Candice McQueen said she was grateful the documentary illustrated what colleges and universities like her Churches of Christ school in Nashville, Tennessee, bring to the table. The Rev. Robert Dowd, president of the University of Notre Dame, said his school takes a both-and approach to the holistic growth of its students. 'Notre Dame is a place where we educate the whole person, where both faith and reason are engaged, where matters of the heart as well as the life of the mind are very much valued,' he said. 'We want our students to grow not only in understanding, in knowledge and in technical skills but in wisdom, and we want them to grow in faith, hope and love.' Among those in attendance were BYU President Shane Reese, BYU-Idaho President Alvin Meredith, BYU-Pathway Worldwide President Brian Ashton and Ensign College President Bruce Kusch. BYU-Hawaii President John Kauwe wasn't at the Kennedy Center, but he was seen in the documentary riding a skateboard on the Laie, Hawaii, campus in white Nikes with a black swoosh and a splash of blue. 'What faith-based institutions offer is another type of belonging,' Kauwe says in the 30-minute film. The presidents met in working groups in the morning to learn about best practices around issues like hiring people who fit a school's mission and how to share and elevate stories about their faith-based schools. Elder Gilbert said the Commission on Faith-based Colleges and Universities creates a friendship for every school. 'There is connectivity for those who always feel like the odd man out,' he said.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
