Latest news with #WillScharf
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Fact-Checked By Own Aide Moments After Bogus Claim
President Donald Trump proudly declared he had ended taxes on Social Security while speaking Thursday from the Oval Office, only to be contradicted by his own aide moments later. 'Last month, I signed 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and allowed no tax on Social Security for our great seniors,' Trump claimed. 'No tax on Social Security for our seniors.' The president, 79, made the comment while marking the 90th anniversary of Social Security. He has repeatedly claimed that he ended taxes on the benefits program for seniors, but that is not what his law, signed in July, actually did. After he made the claim on Thursday, however, his own staffer contradicted him on camera. Trump's Staff Secretary Will Scharf was explaining for the president what was in the proclamation he was about to sign, where he made the admission that the president had not in fact ended taxation on social security. 'It also obviously mentions the fact that as part of the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' a vast majority of our senior citizens are no longer paying taxes on their social security benefits as you promised in your campaign,' Scharf said. As he said it, Trump's top aide seemed to stumble over how to phrase it, settling on 'vast majority,' contradicting the president while avoiding explaining outright that what the law actually contains is a tax deduction. That did not stop the White House from writing on X Thursday that the president was strengthening the program with 'No tax on Social Security for seniors.' The president also doubled down on Truth Social, posting: 'Last month, I signed the One Big Beautiful Bill, and allowed No Tax on Social Security for our great seniors.' While Trump and the White House has repeatedly boasted about ending taxation on the retirement benefits, the massive bill passed by Republicans only temporarily increases a tax deduction for seniors. It's a $6,000 deduction for those over 65, which phases out for those with higher incomes. It is also set to expire at the end of Trump's second term. The Tax Policy Center found only about half of Social Security recipients would benefit from the deduction, noting many were already not paying federal income tax because they were making too small an income while others didn't receive it because their incomes were too high to be eligible. Last month, Trump's Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano came under fire for spreading false information in an email sent to Social Security recipients that the new GOP law would 'eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.' Democrats warned that their offices were being flooded with questions from confused taxpayers about the new provision and demanded the SSA issue a correction clarifying about the deduction. Bisignano joined Trump during his Oval Office remarks on Thursday where he lavished Trump with praise as the president grinned. He notably did not get into detail about what the tax law actually does. As for strengthening social security, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget warned in June that the president's tax law would accelerate Social Security insolvency by a year to 2032.
CBS News
24-07-2025
- Health
- CBS News
U.S. birth rate hits all-time low, CDC data shows
New York — The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024 with fewer than 1.6 kids per woman, federal data released Thursday shows. The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself - about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all. The new statistic is on par with fertility rates in western European countries, according to World Bank data. Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order in February meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of "baby bonuses" that might encourage more couples to have kids. White House staff secretary Will Scharf remarked to reporters at the time that in vitro treatments "have become unaffordable for many Americans or been unaffordable for many Americans." Health insurance companies aren't required to cover IVF treatments, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. "We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase - more births than deaths," she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621 but inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups - and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. "Worry is not a good moment to have kids," and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. "The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans," she said. The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births - about 33,000 more - last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.
Borneo Post
08-07-2025
- Business
- Borneo Post
Trump sends letter to M'sia, US imposes 25 pct tariff on all M'sian products to US
File photo shows President Trump, accompanied by White House staff secretary Will Scharf, signing executive orders imposing the tariffs at the White House in Washington, DC, on April 2. — AFP photo KUALA LUMPUR (July 8): The United States has imposed a higher tariff of 25 percent on any and all Malaysian products sent into the country, separate from all sectoral tariffs, effective Aug 1, this year. This is one percentage point higher compared to what had been announced in April. In a letter to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim posted on Truth Social account on Monday, US President Donald Trump said 'the 25 per cent number is far less than what is needed to eliminate the trade deficit disparity we have with your country'. However, the letter also said that there would be no tariff if Malaysia, or Malaysian companies, decide to build or manufacture products within the United States and that Washington 'will do everything possible to get approvals quickly, professionally, and routinely – in other words, in a matter of weeks'. Trump also said that if Malaysia decided to raise tariffs, the number that the country imposed will be added onto the 25 per cent that US is charging. Malaysia has been negotiating the US tariff with Washington since April, with the aim to lessen the 24 per cent tariff imposed earlier, with the latest talks held on June 18 this year. This announcement came ahead of the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's first trip to Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-US post ministerial conference and other meetings of the 58th ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting and related meetings starting today. – Bernama anwar ibrahim donald trump tariff
Irish Independent
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Andrew Feinberg: Inside Donald Trump's shock-and-awe plan to transform US in his first 100 days
Republican's team aiming to keep enemies on the back foot with flurry of orders ©UK Independent Donald Trump was roughly eight hours into his second term in the White House when he sat down in the Oval Office before an eager pack of reporters, took up his familiar Sharpie-brand pen and opened the floodgates. Prompted by White House staff secretary Will Scharf, Trump began signing a series of executive orders – one to end what he called 'the weaponisation of the federal government', another to wipe away large chunks of his predecessor's work by rescinding dozens of orders signed by Joe Biden, plus more orders upon more orders that reimplemented policies he'd tested out during his first term, or trying out new and aggressive theories of presidential power to accomplish long-held goals that eluded him over his initial four years in office.
Newsweek
24-04-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Trump Executive Order Raises Alarm Over Women's Financial Independence
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. An Executive Order (EO) signed by President Donald Trump is raising concerns over the protection of women's financial independence, as well as other potential civil rights violations. The EO, titled Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy is intended to encourage "meritocracy and a colorblind society, not race- or sex-based favoritism." It calls for an evaluation of all pending proceedings under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which was first passed in 1974 and amended in 1976 to prevent lenders from discriminating against women based on marital status. Although the EO cannot change the law, that can only be done by an act of Congress, if independent federal agencies abide by the order they will stall litigation protecting women from being discriminated against for credit, and they will roll back guidance and regulations which were in place to protect people's rights. President Donald Trump being handed an executive order by White House staff secretary Will Scharf in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, April 23, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump being handed an executive order by White House staff secretary Will Scharf in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, April 23, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Why It Matters Prior to the ECOA, women could be asked to have a male relative or spouse co-sign for their credit cards or loans. President Trump cannot singlehandedly remove the ECOA, but his EO can make it harder for women to get federal help advocating against gender discrimination and can allow federally funded projects to discriminate based on gender. What To Know The EO's main target is the principle of disparate-impact liability, the idea that racism, sexism, or some other form of discrimination can occur without explicit intent. The President believes that disparate-impact liability is a key tool in a "pernicious movement" that "endangers" the U.S.' foundational principle of "creating opportunity, encouraging achievement, and sustaining the American Dream." Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained to Newsweek that disparate-impact liability is: "A recognition that you could have certain hiring practices that, while not, not clearly discriminatory in have a disproportionate impact on a particular protected class. "It could be where you advertise, for example, around employment listings. It could get at certain kinds of redlining practices." President Trump said: "[Disparate-impact liability] not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution." "They're trying to argue that it is somehow violating civil rights law and the Constitution to require employers or housing providers to consider the disparate impact on race or gender or age, right or disability," Olinsky told Newsweek. "Because that somehow might, in individual cases, cause a white young man to lose out because the criteria has been shifted." The ECOA is also intended to protect people of all races, color, age, and ability, creating concern that many groups could become subject to banking discrimination if federal agencies abide by this EO. Evaluation of the ECOA falls under section six of the EO, which Olinsky explained to Newsweek means: "To the extent that there have been any kinds of consent judgments or injunctions or orders that have already been put into government should revisit some of those agreements to see if maybe some can be rolled back." He explained that the order would likely result in the dismissal or quashing of any ongoing cases. The ECOA falls under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is supposed to be an independent agency, but the Trump administration has been working to couple independent agencies with the White House. This move has resulted in several court cases; however, Trump has appointed his own head of the CFPB, which he is allowed to do, and this head will likely follow through on this Executive Order. President Donald Trump signiing executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, April 23, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump signiing executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, April 23, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Not only does President Trump's order for "restoring equality" result in a reevaluation of judgments based around sex discrimination, it also calls for an evaluation of ongoing cases related to Titles VII, and VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and says: "the Attorney General shall initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Title VI prohibits federal funds from going to programs that discriminate against people based on their race, color, or national origin, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination, and Title VIII is also known as the Fair Housing Act which is intended to prevent housing discrimination. Olinsky stressed to Newsweek that this EO does not mean people cannot file private suits. There are still protections in place for women and other minorities, for example, lawsuits against private companies. However, without the federal government, there will be less data collection to aid people in understanding whether they were simply an individual denied a loan or if they were part of a discriminatory pattern, and there will be less support from agencies that are supposed to enforce, educate on, and regulate, federal civil rights laws. What People Are Saying Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress told Newsweek: "You will see fewer to perhaps no effort by the federal government to make sure that women have equal access to credit, that Black people have equal access to credit. I think that will likely be a consequence." President Donald Trump, Executive Order: "Because of disparate-impact liability, employers cannot act in the best interests of the job applicant, the employer, and the American public. Disparate-impact liability imperils the effectiveness of civil rights laws by mandating, rather than proscribing, discrimination." What Happens Next Olinsky warned that the full legal consequence of this EO could come later, as these actions may work their way up to a Supreme Court case and to a bench that has shown it is willing to roll back Civil Rights Act protections in the name of equal opportunity, as demonstrated in Students for Fair Admissions vs Harvard.
